Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. IONQ scored 22.7, ANET scored 71.7 — ANET leads.
Compare another set
IONQ
IonQ, Inc.
Computer Hardware · Quality-Growth
22.7
$39.89 · $16.2B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
49.0
ANET leads
ANET
Arista Networks, Inc.
Computer Hardware · Quality-Growth
71.7
$216.74 · $273.4B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
Fastest growthIONQ+201.9%
Strongest balance sheetIONQ0.02
Highest qualityANET93 / 100
Side by side · every name on one set of axes
The model, pillar by pillar (0–100 each)
IONQ
stronger →← stronger
ANET
18
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
93
100
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
96
6
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
41
ANET is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
IONQ
ANET
-$484mF
FCF
$5.2bB+
+201.9%A
Rev
+28.6%A-
0.02A
D/E
0.00A
65.6xD
P/S
—
—
PEG
1.58C+
—
P/E
68.4xC
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
IONQ
ANET
—
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
241% above
—
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~50%/yr
—
1-yr DCF upside
-77%
—
5-yr DCF upside
-71%
—
10-yr DCF upside
-58%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
IONQ
Why this score
Diluting shareholders
ANET
Why this score
Durable high returns
The companies
IONQIonQ, Inc.
Computer Hardware · $39.89 · beta 3.36
Why now
Computer Hardware · market cap $16.2b. Down 53% from 52-week high of $84.64 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +202% — in hypergrowth territory. 14 sell-side analysts rate this a Strong Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $66.63 (implying +67% upside).
Moat
Higher-variance name — the moat signals on the quantitative card are modest, so the durability case rests on execution (turning current growth into durable earnings power) or an un-monetized asset (IP / network effects / first-mover position) rather than an entrenched competitive position.
Risk
Free cash flow is negative (-$484m) — capital raises or debt issuance likely required; dilution / leverage risk. Down 53% from the 52-week high — the market is pricing in something the screen can't see; verify the bear case before sizing up. Beta 3.36 implies above-market volatility — position-size to the drawdowns this name will produce in a market correction, not to its bull-case return.
ANETArista Networks, Inc.
Computer Hardware · $216.74 · beta 1.60
Why now
Computer Hardware · market cap $273.4b. Trading near 52-week high of $217.41 — momentum setup, limited technical margin of safety. Revenue growing +29% — in hypergrowth territory. 29 sell-side analysts rate this a Strong Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $243.69 (implying +12% upside).
Moat
Net margin 38% is exceptional — pricing-power territory rare outside premium software, branded staples, and specialty pharma. ROE 31% — top-decile capital efficiency. Either pricing leverage, low capital intensity, or aggressive buybacks; the durability story depends on which. FCF converts 127% of net income, helped by cash released from working capital ($871m) that doesn't repeat every year.
Risk
Trailing P/E 68.4x prices in sustained high growth — any quarter that disappoints triggers sharp re-rating. Trading within 0% of the 52-week high — limited technical margin of safety; a momentum reversal would test conviction. Beta 1.60 implies above-market volatility — position-size to the drawdowns this name will produce in a market correction, not to its bull-case return.
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 IONQ and ANET diverge
On the headline score the gap is 49.0 points in favor of ANET. They get there differently, though — each leads on a different pillar, so the better pick depends on which you weight.
QualityIONQ 18.2 · ANET 93.1ANET +74.9
ValueIONQ 6.4 · ANET 41.4ANET +35.0
GrowthIONQ 100.0 · ANET 95.5IONQ +4.5
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 ANET or IONQ the better stock?
ANET scores higher: ANET 71.7, IONQ 22.7 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 ANET and IONQ differ most?
The widest gap is quality, where ANET leads by 75 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 ANET and IONQ 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.