Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. MTCH scored 52.2, OPRA scored 74.5 — OPRA leads.
Compare another set
Different reporting periods. MTCH'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.
MTCH
Match Group, Inc.
Internet Content & Information · Quality-Growth
52.2
$41.09 · $9.6B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
22.3
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%
Highest qualityMTCH81 / 100
Largest discount to fair valueMTCH-31%
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)
MTCH
stronger →← stronger
OPRA
81
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
69
52
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
95
34
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
63
OPRA is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
MTCH
OPRA
$1.1bC+
FCF
$112mC
+1.7%C
Rev
+27.9%A-
Negative equity
D/E
0.01A
14.6xB+
P/E
12.1xB+
0.35A
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
MTCH
OPRA
31% below
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
30% below
~-3%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~6%/yr
+37%
1-yr DCF upside
+11%
+44%
5-yr DCF upside
+43%
+54%
10-yr DCF upside
+108%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
MTCH
Why this score
Buying back stock
Cut its dividend
OPRA
Why this score
Cut its dividend
The companies
MTCHMatch Group, Inc.
Internet Content & Information · $41.09 · beta 1.43
Why now
Internet Content & Information · market cap $9.6b. 9% off the 52-week high of $44.94. PEG 0.35 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 17 sell-side analysts publish a mean 1-yr target of $41.88 (implying +2% upside).
Moat
Net margin 20% sits well above the S&P median (~11%) — suggests structural pricing advantage or cost discipline competitors can't quickly close. FCF converts 161% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash.
Risk
Beta 1.43 implies above-market volatility — position-size to the drawdowns this name will produce in a market correction, not to its bull-case return.
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
OPRA leads MTCH by 1.6 points (74.8 to 73.2), its sharpest advantage coming in Rev (grade A-). A contrarian could still prefer MTCH, which trades about 33% below our DCF fair value — a margin of safety the score doesn't reward.
Our AI analyst is busy right now, so this verdict is drawn directly from the pillars, grades and DCF above.
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 MTCH and OPRA diverge
On the headline score the gap is 22.3 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.
GrowthMTCH 52.1 · OPRA 95.4OPRA +43.3
ValueMTCH 33.8 · OPRA 63.0OPRA +29.2
QualityMTCH 80.9 · OPRA 68.9MTCH +12.0
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 MTCH the better stock?
OPRA scores higher: OPRA 74.5, MTCH 52.2 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 MTCH differ most?
The widest gap is growth, where OPRA leads by 43 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 MTCH 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.