Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. META scored 71.4, OPRA scored 74.5 — OPRA leads.
Compare another set
Different reporting periods. META's fundamentals are as of June 2026, but OPRA's are as of December 2025 — a 6-month gap. Growth, margin and valuation figures below therefore describe different windows and aren't strictly like-for-like.
META
Meta Platforms, Inc.
Internet Content & Information · Quality-Growth
71.4
$718.67 · $1.8T
fundamentals as of
Score gap
3.1
OPRA leads
OPRA
Opera Limited
Internet Content & Information · Quality-Growth
74.5
$17.58 · $1.6B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestOPRA12.1x
Fastest growthOPRA+27.9%
Strongest balance sheetOPRA0.01
Highest qualityMETA89 / 100
Largest discount to fair valueOPRA-30%
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
OPRA
89
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
69
82
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
95
50
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
63
OPRA is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
META
OPRA
$41.0bA
FCF
$112mC
+27.7%A-
Rev
+27.9%A-
0.43B+
D/E
0.01A
27.1xC+
P/E
12.1xB+
0.95B+
PEG
0.55A-
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
OPRA
152% above
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
30% below
~37%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~6%/yr
-67%
1-yr DCF upside
+11%
-60%
5-yr DCF upside
+43%
-48%
10-yr DCF upside
+108%
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
OPRA
Why this score
Cut its dividend
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.
OPRAOpera Limited
Internet Content & Information · $17.58 · beta 1.20
Why now
Internet Content & Information · market cap $1.6b. 15% off the 52-week high of $20.78. Revenue growing +28% — in hypergrowth territory. PEG 0.55 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 7 sell-side analysts publish a mean 1-yr target of $26.29 (implying +50% 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 11% meets the long-run market sustainable threshold — solid but not differentiated; the durability comes from elsewhere. FCF converts 104% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash.
Risk
Dividend payout 86% of earnings on a 4.8% yield — distribution coverage is thin; one earnings stumble could force a dividend cut.
Verdict — model-derived comparison
The model favors META (78.1) over OPRA (71.5) primarily due to META's superior Quality pillar score of 86 versus OPRA's 69. A contrarian, however, might prefer OPRA for its -37% discount to DCF fair value and a low 3% implied growth rate. A caveat for OPRA is its "Cut its dividend" signal.
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 OPRA diverge
On the headline score the gap is 3.1 points in favor of OPRA. They get there differently, though — each leads on a different pillar, so the better pick depends on which you weight.
QualityMETA 88.7 · OPRA 68.9META +19.8
GrowthMETA 81.8 · OPRA 95.4OPRA +13.6
ValueMETA 50.2 · OPRA 63.0OPRA +12.8
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 OPRA or META the better stock?
OPRA scores higher: OPRA 74.5, 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 OPRA and META differ most?
The widest gap is quality, where META leads by 20 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 OPRA 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.