COMPARE · Data as of August 24, 2026
EDU vs LAUR
Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. EDU scored 75.8, LAUR scored 75.0 — EDU leads.
Compare another set
Different reporting periods. LAUR's fundamentals are as of June 2026, but EDU's are as of May 2025 — a 13-month gap. Growth, margin and valuation figures below therefore describe different windows and aren't strictly like-for-like.
EDU
New Oriental Education & Technology Group Inc.
75.8
$57.05 · $9.4B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
0.8
EDU leads
LAUR
Laureate Education, Inc.
75
$37.27 · $5.1B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
- CheapestLAUR16.9x
- Fastest growthLAUR+17.9%
- Strongest balance sheetEDU0.20
- Highest qualityLAUR91 / 100
- Largest discount to fair valueEDU-27%
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)
EDU
stronger →← stronger
LAUR
70
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
91
80
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
80
77
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
58
LAUR is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
EDU
LAUR
$655mC+
FCF
$287mC
+13.6%B+
Rev
+17.9%B+
0.20A-
D/E
0.64B+
19.0xB
P/E
16.9xB+
1.01B+
PEG
1.20B+
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
EDU
LAUR
27% below
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
5% below
~2%/yr
Growth the price implies10-yr FCF · lower = less priced in
~8%/yr
+16%
1-yr DCF upside
-9%
+37%
5-yr DCF upside
+6%
+74%
10-yr DCF upside
+31%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
EDU
Why this score
- Buying back stock
LAUR
Why this score
- Buying back stock
- Durable high returns
The companies
EDUNew Oriental Education & Technology Group Inc.
Why now
Education & Training Services · market cap $9.4b. 12% off the 52-week high of $64.97. Revenue growing +14%, comfortably above the S&P median. 21 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $73.30 (implying +28% upside).
Moat
ROE 10% meets the long-run market sustainable threshold — solid but not differentiated; the durability comes from elsewhere. FCF converts 176% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash, a sign that working capital and capex are well-disciplined.
Risk
Mature compounder — the risk is paying up for quality at a moment when growth is decelerating. Watch for sequential revenue + margin trends; the inflection from "compounder" to "ex-compounder" is hard to spot until the multiple already started compressing.
LAURLaureate Education, Inc.
Why now
Education & Training Services · market cap $5.1b. 9% off the 52-week high of $40.92. Revenue growing +18%, comfortably above the S&P median. 7 sell-side analysts publish a mean 1-yr target of $41.21 (implying +11% upside).
Moat
Net margin 18% beats the market median by a meaningful margin — the company is keeping more of every revenue dollar than the average S&P constituent. ROE 28% — top-decile capital efficiency. Either pricing leverage, low capital intensity, or aggressive buybacks; the durability story depends on which.
Risk
Mature compounder — the risk is paying up for quality at a moment when growth is decelerating. Watch for sequential revenue + margin trends; the inflection from "compounder" to "ex-compounder" is hard to spot until the multiple already started compressing.
Verdict — model-derived comparison
The model slightly favors LAUR (75.4) over EDU (74.9), driven by LAUR's superior Quality pillar score of 91 and "Durable high returns." Conversely, a contrarian might prefer EDU for its significant 28% discount to DCF fair value and a lower implied growth rate of just 2% per year, indicating less market optimism is priced in.
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 EDU and LAUR diverge
On the headline score the gap is 0.8 points in favor of EDU. They get there differently, though — each leads on a different pillar, so the better pick depends on which you weight.
- QualityEDU 70.3 · LAUR 90.8LAUR +20.5
- ValueEDU 77.4 · LAUR 57.7EDU +19.7
- GrowthEDU 79.8 · LAUR 80.5level
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.