Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. INOD scored 83.7, CTSH scored 73.3 — INOD leads.
Compare another set
INOD
Innodata Inc.
Information Technology Services · Quality-Growth
83.7
$62.04 · $2.1B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
10.4
INOD leads
CTSH
Cognizant Technology Solutions Corporation
Information Technology Services · Quality-Growth
73.3
$59.20 · $26.7B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestCTSH12.9x
Fastest growthINOD+47.6%
Strongest balance sheetINOD0.02
Highest qualityINOD85 / 100
Largest discount to fair valueCTSH-43%
Side by side · every name on one set of axes
Growth against the P/E multiple. Up and to the right is cheaper and faster — the quality-growth idea in one picture. Points beyond the axis are pinned to the edge and marked off-scale rather than allowed to compress everything else.
The model, pillar by pillar (0–100 each)
INOD
stronger →← stronger
CTSH
85
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
81
98
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
62
70
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
79
INOD is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
INOD
CTSH
$184mC
FCF
$2.6bB
+47.6%A
Rev
+7.0%C+
0.02A-
D/E
0.14B+
48.1xC+
P/E
12.9xA
0.87B+
PEG
0.87B+
Winner per row is the stronger grade; where grades tie, the better figure breaks it. A true tie or a missing value shows no highlight.
Valuation · DCF cross-check
INOD
CTSH
19% below
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
43% below
~10%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~-8%/yr
-4%
1-yr DCF upside
+69%
+23%
5-yr DCF upside
+76%
+73%
10-yr DCF upside
+87%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
INOD
Why this score
Durable high returns
Diluting shareholders
CTSH
Why this score
Buying back stock
Raising its dividend
Durable high returns
The companies
INODInnodata Inc.
Information Technology Services · $62.04 · beta 2.98
Why now
Information Technology Services · market cap $2.1b. Down 50% from 52-week high of $125.14 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +48% — in hypergrowth territory. PEG 0.87 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 4 sell-side analysts publish a mean 1-yr target of $122.75 (implying +98% upside).
Moat
Net margin 15% beats the market median by a meaningful margin — the company is keeping more of every revenue dollar than the average S&P constituent. ROE 38% — top-decile capital efficiency. Either pricing leverage, low capital intensity, or aggressive buybacks; the durability story depends on which. Free cash flow runs well ahead of reported net income, mostly because of cash released from working capital ($120m) — a release that doesn't repeat every year the way earnings can.
Risk
Down 50% from the 52-week high — the market is pricing in something the screen can't see; verify the bear case before sizing up. Beta 2.98 implies above-market volatility — position-size to the drawdowns this name will produce in a market correction, not to its bull-case return. Trailing P/E 48x sits well above the S&P median (~20x) — multiple compression is a real risk if revenue growth decelerates.
CTSHCognizant Technology Solutions Corporation
Information Technology Services · $59.20 · beta 0.85
Why now
Information Technology Services · market cap $26.7b. Down 32% from 52-week high of $87.03 — deep drawdown territory. PEG 0.87 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 25 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $65.90 (implying +11% upside).
Moat
ROE 15% meets the long-run market sustainable threshold — solid but not differentiated; the durability comes from elsewhere. FCF converts 117% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash.
Risk
Down 32% from the 52-week high — the market is pricing in something the screen can't see; verify the bear case before sizing up.
Verdict — model-derived comparison
CTSH and INOD score effectively even on the Bull Rankings model (77.6 versus 77.6), so none holds a clear model edge — the call comes down to which trade-off you weight more: sector exposure (Information Technology Services) and valuation.
Our AI analyst is busy right now, so this verdict is drawn directly from the pillars, grades and DCF above.
Not investment advice. The Bull Rankings publishes a quantitative ranking model and accompanying analysis for general informational purposes only. Nothing on this page is a recommendation to buy, sell, or hold any security; nothing is personalized to your circumstances, risk tolerance, or tax situation. Investing carries the risk of loss — invest at your own risk and consider consulting a licensed financial professional before acting on anything you read here. See terms and methodology for full disclosures.
Where INOD and CTSH diverge
On the headline score the gap is 10.4 points in favor of INOD. They get there differently, though — each leads on a different pillar, so the better pick depends on which you weight.
GrowthINOD 97.9 · CTSH 61.5INOD +36.4
ValueINOD 70.1 · CTSH 78.7CTSH +8.6
QualityINOD 85.4 · CTSH 81.2INOD +4.2
Pillars run 0–100. Value is judged against each company's own sector, so a Value score is a statement about a company relative to its own industry rather than to the other name here. A wide Value gap usually means the market already prices the difference in quality or growth — which is the trade-off this comparison comes down to.
Common questions
Is INOD or CTSH the better stock?
INOD scores higher: INOD 83.7, CTSH 73.3 out of 100 on the Bull Rankings quality-growth score, which blends business quality, growth and valuation into one number. A higher score means a stronger business at a more reasonable price — it is not a price target or a recommendation.
Where do INOD and CTSH differ most?
The widest gap is growth, where INOD leads by 36 points on the 0–100 pillar scale. Neither name sweeps: they trade the lead across the three pillars, so the comparison is a trade-off rather than one being better on every measure.
How are INOD and CTSH scored?
Each carries the same 0–100 quality-growth score used everywhere on the site, built from three pillars — quality (profitability and returns on capital), growth (revenue and earnings), and value (what you pay for them) — combined as a geometric mean, so a weak pillar cannot be papered over by a strong one.
How current is this comparison?
The whole universe is re-scored every trading day after the US market close, so the scores and fundamentals here reflect the latest published edition.