COMPARE · Data as of August 24, 2026
EPAM vs INOD
Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. EPAM scored 81.9, INOD scored 86.1 — INOD leads.
Compare another set
EPAM
EPAM Systems, Inc.
81.9
$111.26 · $5.7B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
4.2
INOD leads
INOD
Innodata Inc.
86.1
$57.13 · $2.0B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
- CheapestEPAM15.1x
- Fastest growthINOD+39.0%
- Strongest balance sheetINOD0.02
- Highest qualityINOD86 / 100
- Largest discount to fair valueINOD-54%
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)
EPAM
stronger →← stronger
INOD
73
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
86
82
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
97
91
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
77
INOD is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
EPAM
INOD
$483mC
FCF
$184mC
+10.8%B
Rev
+39.0%A
0.04A-
D/E
0.02A-
15.1xA-
P/E
44.3xC+
0.59A-
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
EPAM
INOD
4% below
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
54% below
~4%/yr
Growth the price implies10-yr FCF · lower = less priced in
~-5%/yr
-1%
1-yr DCF upside
+67%
+4%
5-yr DCF upside
+120%
+12%
10-yr DCF upside
+228%
These two disagree on this pair: the Value pillar ranks cheapness against sector peers, while price-vs-fair-value is an absolute read. A name can be the better value in its sector and still the dearer one on cash flows.
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
EPAM
Why this score
- Buying back stock
INOD
Why this score
- Durable high returns
- Diluting shareholders
The companies
EPAMEPAM Systems, Inc.
Why now
Information Technology Services · market cap $5.7b. Down 50% from 52-week high of $222.53 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +11%, comfortably above the S&P median. PEG 0.59 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 17 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $122.82 (implying +10% upside).
Moat
ROE 11% meets the long-run market sustainable threshold — solid but not differentiated; the durability comes from elsewhere. FCF converts 120% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash, a sign that working capital and capex are well-disciplined.
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.
INODInnodata Inc.
Why now
Information Technology Services · market cap $2.0b. Down 54% from 52-week high of $125.14 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +39% — 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 +115% 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 29% — 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 — non-cash charges (depreciation, intangible amortization) are holding down GAAP earnings while cash generation stays strong.
Risk
Down 54% from the 52-week high — the market is pricing in something the screen can't see; verify the bear case before sizing up. Beta 2.92 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 44x sits well above the S&P median (~20x) — multiple compression is a real risk if revenue growth decelerates.
Verdict — model-derived comparison
INOD leads EPAM by 4.2 points (86.1 to 81.9), its sharpest advantage coming in Rev (grade A). A contrarian could still prefer EPAM, which trades about 4% below our DCF fair value — a margin of safety the score doesn't reward. Note they play different roles — EPAM screens as value, INOD screens as growth — so the model rewards different traits for each.
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 EPAM and INOD diverge
On the headline score the gap is 4.2 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.
- GrowthEPAM 82.3 · INOD 97.5INOD +15.2
- ValueEPAM 91.2 · INOD 76.5EPAM +14.7
- QualityEPAM 73.2 · INOD 85.6INOD +12.4
Pillars run 0–100 against sector peers, so a 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.