Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. MGM scored 38.9, BKNG scored 68.4 — BKNG leads.
Compare another set
MGM
MGM Resorts International
Resorts & Casinos · Quality-Growth
38.9
$29.27 · $7.5B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
29.5
BKNG leads
BKNG
Booking Holdings Inc.
Travel Services · Quality-Growth
68.4
$160.34 · $120.5B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestBKNG17.7x
Fastest growthBKNG+12.9%
Highest qualityBKNG96 / 100
Largest discount to fair valueMGM-56%
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)
MGM
stronger →← stronger
BKNG
61
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
96
30
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
50
32
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
67
BKNG is stronger on 3 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
MGM
BKNG
$1.5bC+
FCF
$9.5bB+
+3.2%C+
Rev
+12.9%B+
8.93D
D/E
Negative equity
18.1xB
P/E
17.7xB
—
PEG
0.88B+
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
MGM
BKNG
56% below
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
32% below
~-17%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~2%/yr
+131%
1-yr DCF upside
+22%
+129%
5-yr DCF upside
+46%
+127%
10-yr DCF upside
+90%
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
MGM
Why this score
Buying back stock
BKNG
Why this score
Raising its dividend
Durable high returns
Cyclical growth
The companies
MGMMGM Resorts International
Resorts & Casinos · $29.27 · beta 1.35
Why now
Resorts & Casinos · market cap $7.5b. Down 43% from 52-week high of $51.59 — deep drawdown territory. 19 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $48.12 (implying +64% upside).
Moat
ROE 17% is above 15% — the equity base is compounding at a rate the market struggles to discount accurately. Free cash flow runs well ahead of reported net income, mostly because of depreciation and amortization ($1.1b) — non-cash charges that hold down reported earnings while cash generation stays strong.
Risk
D/E 8.93 is elevated — limits strategic flexibility and raises refinancing exposure if rates stay higher for longer. Down 43% from the 52-week high — the market is pricing in something the screen can't see; verify the bear case before sizing up. Net margin 2.4% is thin — operating leverage cuts both ways; input-cost inflation or pricing pressure hits the bottom line first.
BKNGBooking Holdings Inc.
Travel Services · $160.34 · beta 1.13
Why now
Travel Services · market cap $120.5b. Down 27% from 52-week high of $220.81 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +13%, comfortably above the S&P median. PEG 0.88 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 35 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $235.26 (implying +47% upside).
Moat
Net margin 19% beats the market median by a meaningful margin — the company is keeping more of every revenue dollar than the average S&P constituent. FCF converts 177% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash. $120.5b market cap gives the company enough scale to absorb fixed costs that subscale competitors can't, without yet being so large that growth has to come from acquisition.
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
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 MGM and BKNG diverge
On the headline score the gap is 29.5 points in favor of BKNG. The widest single difference is Quality, where BKNG leads by 35.3 points.
QualityMGM 60.8 · BKNG 96.1BKNG +35.3
ValueMGM 32.3 · BKNG 66.5BKNG +34.2
GrowthMGM 29.9 · BKNG 50.0BKNG +20.1
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 BKNG or MGM the better stock?
BKNG scores higher: BKNG 68.4, MGM 38.9 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 BKNG and MGM differ most?
The widest gap is quality, where BKNG leads by 35 points on the 0–100 pillar scale. BKNG leads all three pillars, so the gap is broad rather than a single-measure difference.
How are BKNG and MGM 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.