COMPARE · Data as of August 21, 2026

META vs NFLX

Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. META scored 79.1, NFLX scored 73.6 — META leads.
Compare another set
META
Meta Platforms, Inc.
Internet Content & Information · Quality-Growth
79.1
$545.83 · $1.4T
fundamentals as of
Score gap
5.5
META leads
NFLX
Netflix, Inc.
Entertainment · Quality-Growth
73.6
$80.14 · $333.7B
fundamentals as of
  • CheapestMETA20.6x
  • Fastest growthMETA+27.7%
  • Strongest balance sheetMETA0.43
  • Highest qualityNFLX93 / 100
THE BULL RANKINGS SCORECARD79.1/ 100 · BULL SCOREPEER MEDIANQUALITY86.4GROWTH92.4VALUE61.8
THE BULL RANKINGS SCORECARD73.6/ 100 · BULL SCOREPEER MEDIANQUALITY92.6GROWTH87.7VALUE49.0
METANFLXQuality86.492.6Growth92.487.7Value61.849.0
cheap & fastrevenue growth →← cheaper (lower multiple)6%38%16x30xMETANFLX

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.

FCFMETA$41.0bNFLX$11.2b
RevMETA+27.7%NFLX+16.0%
D/EMETA0.43NFLX0.55
P/EMETA20.6xNFLX25.2x
PEGMETA0.82NFLX1.80
META
stronger →← stronger
NFLX
86
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
93
92
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
88
62
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
49
META is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
META
NFLX
$41.0bA
FCF
$11.2bA-
+27.7%A-
Rev
+16.0%B+
0.43B+
D/E
0.55B
20.6xB
P/E
25.2xC+
0.82B+
PEG
1.80C+
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.
META
NFLX
129% above
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
164% above
~29%/yr
Growth the price implies10-yr FCF · lower = less priced in
~31%/yr
-61%
1-yr DCF upside
-64%
-56%
5-yr DCF upside
-62%
-49%
10-yr DCF upside
-60%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
META
Why this score
  • Durable high returns
NFLX
Why this score
  • Durable high returns
METAMeta Platforms, Inc.
Internet Content & Information · $545.83 · beta 1.24
Why now
Internet Content & Information · market cap $1.4T. Down 31% from 52-week high of $790.80 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +28% — in hypergrowth territory. PEG 0.82 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 57 sell-side analysts rate this a Strong Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $754.14 (implying +38% 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. $1.4T 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
Down 31% from the 52-week high — the market is pricing in something the screen can't see; verify the bear case before sizing up.
NFLXNetflix, Inc.
Entertainment · $80.14 · beta 1.51
Why now
Entertainment · market cap $333.7b. Down 37% from 52-week high of $126.71 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +16%, comfortably above the S&P median. 45 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $93.42 (implying +17% upside).
Moat
Net margin 28% sits well above the S&P median (~11%) — suggests structural pricing advantage or cost discipline competitors can't quickly close. ROE 45% — top-decile capital efficiency. Either pricing leverage, low capital intensity, or aggressive buybacks; the durability story depends on which. $333.7b 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
Down 37% from the 52-week high — the market is pricing in something the screen can't see; verify the bear case before sizing up. Beta 1.51 implies above-market volatility — position-size to the drawdowns this name will produce in a market correction, not to its bull-case return.
The model favors META with an 82 score, primarily due to its superior Value pillar of 65 compared to NFLX's 52, reflected in META's B+ PEG of 0.83 versus NFLX's C+ PEG of 1.61. A contrarian might still prefer NFLX for its slightly higher Quality pillar of 92, though its price is 142% of DCF fair value, implying greater optimism than META's 98%.
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 NFLX diverge

On the headline score the gap is 5.5 points in favor of META. They get there differently, though — each leads on a different pillar, so the better pick depends on which you weight.

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.