Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. INTU scored 81.9, ZM scored 66.7 — INTU leads.
Compare another set
INTU
Intuit Inc.
Software - Application · Quality-Growth
81.9
$302.75 · $80.9B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
15.2
INTU leads
ZM
Zoom Communications, Inc.
Software - Application · Quality-Growth
66.7
$97.74 · $28.5B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestZM9.1x
Fastest growthINTU+13.9%
Strongest balance sheetZM0.01
Highest qualityINTU88 / 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
ZM
88
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
80
75
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
52
83
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
71
INTU is stronger on 3 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
INTU
ZM
$8.6bB+
FCF
$1.9bC+
+13.9%B+
Rev
+5.0%C+
0.44B
D/E
0.01A
18.4xB+
P/E
9.1xA
0.96B+
PEG
2.50C
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
ZM
49% below
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
0% below
~-7%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~4%/yr
+72%
1-yr DCF upside
-1%
+96%
5-yr DCF upside
+0%
+136%
10-yr DCF upside
+3%
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
ZM
Why this score
Buying back stock
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.
ZMZoom Communications, Inc.
Software - Application · $97.74 · beta 1.03
Why now
Software - Application · market cap $28.5b. 15% off the 52-week high of $114.74. 25 sell-side analysts publish a mean 1-yr target of $118.24 (implying +21% upside).
Moat
Net margin 65% is exceptional — pricing-power territory rare outside premium software, branded staples, and specialty pharma. ROE 29% — top-decile capital efficiency. Either pricing leverage, low capital intensity, or aggressive buybacks; the durability story depends on which. Software economics — recurring revenue, embedded customer workflows, and high gross margin all compound the moat once a base account is won. Switching costs are the lever.
Risk
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
Generating verdict… typically 5–10 seconds
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 ZM diverge
On the headline score the gap is 15.2 points in favor of INTU. The widest single difference is Growth, where INTU leads by 23.1 points.
GrowthINTU 75.3 · ZM 52.2INTU +23.1
ValueINTU 82.6 · ZM 71.5INTU +11.1
QualityINTU 88.3 · ZM 79.6INTU +8.7
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 INTU or ZM the better stock?
INTU scores higher: INTU 81.9, ZM 66.7 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 INTU and ZM differ most?
The widest gap is growth, where INTU leads by 23 points on the 0–100 pillar scale. INTU leads all three pillars, so the gap is broad rather than a single-measure difference.
How are INTU and ZM 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.