Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. INTU scored 81.9, ADBE scored 85.4 — ADBE leads.
Compare another set
INTU
Intuit Inc.
Software - Application · Quality-Growth
81.9
$302.75 · $80.9B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
3.5
ADBE leads
ADBE
Adobe Inc.
Software - Application · Quality-Growth
85.4
$242.27 · $94.3B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestADBE13.5x
Fastest growthINTU+13.9%
Strongest balance sheetINTU0.44
Highest qualityADBE92 / 100
Largest discount to fair valueINTU-49%
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)
INTU
stronger →← stronger
ADBE
88
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
92
75
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
80
83
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
85
ADBE is stronger on 3 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
INTU
ADBE
$8.6bB+
FCF
$10.6bA-
+13.9%B+
Rev
+10.5%B
0.44B
D/E
0.58C+
18.4xB+
P/E
13.5xA-
0.96B+
PEG
0.58A-
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
INTU
ADBE
49% below
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
35% below
~-7%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~-2%/yr
+72%
1-yr DCF upside
+37%
+96%
5-yr DCF upside
+53%
+136%
10-yr DCF upside
+80%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
INTU
Why this score
Buying back stock
Raising its dividend
ADBE
Why this score
Buying back stock
Durable high returns
The companies
INTUIntuit Inc.
Software - Application · $302.75 · beta 1.01
Why now
Software - Application · market cap $80.9b. Down 56% from 52-week high of $689.17 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +14%, comfortably above the S&P median. PEG 0.96 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 31 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $405.60 (implying +34% upside).
Moat
Net margin 21% sits well above the S&P median (~11%) — suggests structural pricing advantage or cost discipline competitors can't quickly close. ROE 24% is above 15% — the equity base is compounding at a rate the market struggles to discount accurately. FCF converts 189% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash.
Risk
Down 56% from the 52-week high — the market is pricing in something the screen can't see; verify the bear case before sizing up. Software — competitive moat is durable until it isn't; watch net revenue retention, gross margin trends, and any new market entrant with a fundamentally lower price point.
ADBEAdobe Inc.
Software - Application · $242.27 · beta 1.42
Why now
Software - Application · market cap $94.3b. Down 33% from 52-week high of $363.70 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +11%, comfortably above the S&P median. PEG 0.58 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 32 sell-side analysts rate this a Hold with a mean 1-yr target of $275.06 (implying +14% upside).
Moat
Net margin 28% sits well above the S&P median (~11%) — suggests structural pricing advantage or cost discipline competitors can't quickly close. ROE 62% — top-decile capital efficiency. Either pricing leverage, low capital intensity, or aggressive buybacks; the durability story depends on which. FCF converts 145% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash.
Risk
Down 33% from the 52-week high — the market is pricing in something the screen can't see; verify the bear case before sizing up. Beta 1.42 implies above-market volatility — position-size to the drawdowns this name will produce in a market correction, not to its bull-case return. Software — competitive moat is durable until it isn't; watch net revenue retention, gross margin trends, and any new market entrant with a fundamentally lower price point.
Verdict — model-derived comparison
The model favors ADBE (88.8) over INTU (87.5), driven by ADBE's superior Quality pillar score of 92 and signals of durable high returns. Yet, a contrarian could prefer INTU for its significantly lower implied growth rate of -4% per year, indicating less optimism is priced into its shares.
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 INTU and ADBE diverge
On the headline score the gap is 3.5 points in favor of ADBE. The widest single difference is Growth, where ADBE leads by 4.4 points.
GrowthINTU 75.3 · ADBE 79.7ADBE +4.4
QualityINTU 88.3 · ADBE 92.1ADBE +3.8
ValueINTU 82.6 · ADBE 84.8level
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 ADBE or INTU the better stock?
ADBE scores higher: ADBE 85.4, INTU 81.9 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 ADBE and INTU differ most?
The widest gap is growth, where ADBE leads by 4 points on the 0–100 pillar scale. ADBE also leads quality, while value is effectively level between them.
How are ADBE and INTU 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.