Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. META scored 71.4, GOOG scored 80.4 — GOOG leads.
Compare another set
META
Meta Platforms, Inc.
Internet Content & Information · Quality-Growth
71.4
$718.67 · $1.8T
fundamentals as of
Score gap
9.0
GOOG leads
GOOG
Alphabet Inc.
Internet Content & Information · Quality-Growth
80.4
$347.86 · $4.3T
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestGOOG17.5x
Fastest growthMETA+27.7%
Strongest balance sheetGOOG0.19
Highest qualityMETA89 / 100
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)
META
stronger →← stronger
GOOG
89
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
84
82
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
91
50
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
68
GOOG is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
META
GOOG
$41.0bA
FCF
$53.3bA
+27.7%A-
Rev
+20.1%A-
0.43B+
D/E
0.19A-
27.1xC+
P/E
17.5xB
0.95B+
PEG
1.21B
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
META
GOOG
152% above
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
344% above
~37%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~54%/yr
-67%
1-yr DCF upside
-82%
-60%
5-yr DCF upside
-77%
-48%
10-yr DCF upside
-70%
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
META
Why this score
Durable high returns
GOOG
Why this score
Durable high returns
The companies
METAMeta Platforms, Inc.
Internet Content & Information · $718.67 · beta 1.19
Why now
Internet Content & Information · market cap $1.8T. 8% off the 52-week high of $779.82. Revenue growing +28% — in hypergrowth territory. PEG 0.95 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 58 sell-side analysts rate this a Strong Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $799.34 (implying +11% upside).
Moat
Net margin 30% sits well above the S&P median (~11%) — suggests structural pricing advantage or cost discipline competitors can't quickly close. ROE 26% — top-decile capital efficiency. Either pricing leverage, low capital intensity, or aggressive buybacks; the durability story depends on which. $1.8T market cap places it among the largest companies in the sector — distribution, R&D, and customer-acquisition costs amortize across a base peers can't replicate.
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.
GOOGAlphabet Inc.
Internet Content & Information · $347.86 · beta 1.21
Why now
Internet Content & Information · market cap $4.3T. 14% off the 52-week high of $404.47. Revenue growing +20%, comfortably above the S&P median. 14 sell-side analysts rate this a Strong Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $420.36 (implying +21% upside).
Moat
Net margin 55% is exceptional — pricing-power territory rare outside premium software, branded staples, and specialty pharma. ROE 38% — top-decile capital efficiency. Either pricing leverage, low capital intensity, or aggressive buybacks; the durability story depends on which. $4.3T market cap places it among the largest companies in the sector — distribution, R&D, and customer-acquisition costs amortize across a base peers can't replicate.
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
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 META and GOOG diverge
On the headline score the gap is 9.0 points in favor of GOOG. They get there differently, though — each leads on a different pillar, so the better pick depends on which you weight.
ValueMETA 50.2 · GOOG 67.9GOOG +17.7
GrowthMETA 81.8 · GOOG 90.5GOOG +8.7
QualityMETA 88.7 · GOOG 84.4META +4.3
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 GOOG or META the better stock?
GOOG scores higher: GOOG 80.4, META 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 GOOG and META differ most?
The widest gap is value, where GOOG 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 GOOG and META 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.