Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. LAUR scored 78.5, LOPE scored 71.4 — LAUR leads.
Compare another set
LAUR
Laureate Education, Inc.
Education & Training Services · Quality-Growth
78.5
$39.47 · $5.4B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
7.1
LAUR leads
LOPE
Grand Canyon Education, Inc.
Education & Training Services · Quality-Growth
71.4
$159.80 · $4.2B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestLAUR17.9x
Fastest growthLAUR+17.9%
Strongest balance sheetLOPE0.16
Highest qualityLOPE97 / 100
Largest discount to fair valueLOPE-28%
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)
LAUR
stronger →← stronger
LOPE
91
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
97
84
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
66
63
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
57
LAUR is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
LAUR
LOPE
$287mC
FCF
$242mC
+17.9%B+
Rev
+7.1%B
0.64B+
D/E
0.16A-
17.9xB
P/E
19.3xB
1.09B+
PEG
0.94B+
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
LAUR
LOPE
1% above
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
28% below
~10%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~-2%/yr
-14%
1-yr DCF upside
+33%
-1%
5-yr DCF upside
+39%
+20%
10-yr DCF upside
+48%
These two disagree on this pair: the Value pillar ranks cheapness against sector peers, while price-vs-fair-value is an absolute read. A name can be the better value in its sector and still the dearer one on cash flows.
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
LAUR
Why this score
Buying back stock
Durable high returns
LOPE
Why this score
Buying back stock
Durable high returns
The companies
LAURLaureate Education, Inc.
Education & Training Services · $39.47 · beta 0.47
Why now
Education & Training Services · market cap $5.4b. 4% off the 52-week high of $40.92. Revenue growing +18%, comfortably above the S&P median. 7 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $41.21 (implying +4% 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.
LOPEGrand Canyon Education, Inc.
Education & Training Services · $159.80 · beta 0.58
Why now
Education & Training Services · market cap $4.2b. Down 28% from 52-week high of $223.04 — deep drawdown territory. PEG 0.94 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 3 sell-side analysts rate this a Strong Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $194.00 (implying +21% upside).
Moat
Net margin 20% beats the market median by a meaningful margin — the company is keeping more of every revenue dollar than the average S&P constituent. ROE 31% — top-decile capital efficiency. Either pricing leverage, low capital intensity, or aggressive buybacks; the durability story depends on which. FCF converts 108% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash.
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.
Verdict — model-derived comparison
The model slightly favors LOPE (76.1) over LAUR (75.8) primarily due to LOPE's superior Value pillar score of 75 compared to LAUR's 57. A contrarian, however, could prefer LAUR for its significantly higher revenue growth of +17.9% (B+ grade) versus LOPE's +7.0% (C+ grade). Both stocks are in the same sector and use comparable scoring models, so no structural caveats apply.
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 LAUR and LOPE diverge
On the headline score the gap is 7.1 points in favor of LAUR. They get there differently, though — each leads on a different pillar, so the better pick depends on which you weight.
GrowthLAUR 84.0 · LOPE 65.8LAUR +18.2
ValueLAUR 63.4 · LOPE 57.1LAUR +6.3
QualityLAUR 90.7 · LOPE 96.8LOPE +6.1
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 LAUR or LOPE the better stock?
LAUR scores higher: LAUR 78.5, LOPE 71.4 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 LAUR and LOPE differ most?
The widest gap is growth, where LAUR leads by 18 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 LAUR and LOPE 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.