COMPARE · Data as of August 21, 2026
G vs IT
Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. G scored 76.1, IT scored 68.3 — G leads.
Compare another set
G
Genpact Limited
76.1
$37.14 · $6.2B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
7.8
G leads
IT
Gartner, Inc.
68.3
$195.90 · $12.4B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
- CheapestG11.1x
- Fastest growthG+6.5%
- Highest qualityG80 / 100
- Largest discount to fair valueG-57%
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)
G
stronger →← stronger
IT
80
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
76
73
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
49
76
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
86
G is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
G
IT
$572mC+
FCF
$1.3bC+
+6.5%C+
Rev
+0.7%C
0.54C+
D/E
—
11.1xA
P/E
17.6xA-
1.16B+
PEG
0.86B+
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
G
IT
57% below
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
52% below
~-13%/yr
Growth the price implies10-yr FCF · lower = less priced in
~-9%/yr
+115%
1-yr DCF upside
+81%
+135%
5-yr DCF upside
+107%
+168%
10-yr DCF upside
+152%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
G
Why this score
- Buying back stock
- Raising its dividend
- Durable high returns
IT
Why this score
- Buying back stock
- Durable high returns
The companies
GGenpact Limited
Why now
Information Technology Services · market cap $6.2b. Down 24% from 52-week high of $48.64 — deep drawdown territory. 11 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $42.18 (implying +14% upside).
Moat
ROE 22% sits above Buffett's preferred 15% threshold — the equity base is compounding at a rate the market struggles to discount accurately. FCF converts 98% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash, a sign that working capital and capex are well-disciplined.
Risk
Value re-rating depends on a catalyst. Without one — analyst day, divestiture, margin recovery, capital return — the stock can stay cheap on these multiples for years.
ITGartner, Inc.
Why now
Information Technology Services · market cap $12.4b. Down 26% from 52-week high of $265.85 — deep drawdown territory. PEG 0.86 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 13 sell-side analysts rate this a Hold with a mean 1-yr target of $185.15 (implying -5% upside).
Moat
FCF converts 166% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash, a sign that working capital and capex are well-disciplined.
Risk
ROE -463% is below the long-run sustainable threshold of ~10% — capital efficiency would need to improve for the equity base to compound at the market rate.
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 G and IT diverge
On the headline score the gap is 7.8 points in favor of G. They get there differently, though — each leads on a different pillar, so the better pick depends on which you weight.
- GrowthG 72.7 · IT 49.0G +23.7
- ValueG 75.7 · IT 85.6IT +9.9
- QualityG 80.2 · IT 76.0G +4.2
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.