Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. NBIS scored 38.3, RDDT scored 72.0 — RDDT leads.
Compare another set
Different reporting periods. RDDT's fundamentals are as of June 2026, but NBIS'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.
NBIS
Nebius Group N.V.
Internet Content & Information · Quality-Growth
38.3
$221.07 · $60.1B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
33.7
RDDT leads
RDDT
Reddit, Inc.
Internet Content & Information · Quality-Growth
72
$159.91 · $30.8B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
Fastest growthNBIS+479.0%
Strongest balance sheetRDDT0.01
Highest qualityRDDT79 / 100
Side by side · every name on one set of axes
The model, pillar by pillar (0–100 each)
NBIS
stronger →← stronger
RDDT
30
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
79
100
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
99
19
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
61
RDDT is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
NBIS
RDDT
-$3.8bF
FCF
$1.0bC+
+479.0%A
Rev
+66.6%A
0.99C+
D/E
0.01A
0.51A-
PEG
0.78A-
—
P/E
37.2xC
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
NBIS
RDDT
—
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
112% above
—
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~37%/yr
—
1-yr DCF upside
-63%
—
5-yr DCF upside
-53%
—
10-yr DCF upside
-34%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
NBIS
Why this score
Buying back stock
Short track record
RDDT
Why this score
Diluting shareholders
Short track record
The companies
NBISNebius Group N.V.
Internet Content & Information · $221.07 · beta 1.46
Why now
Internet Content & Information · market cap $60.1b. Down 26% from 52-week high of $299.86 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +479% — in hypergrowth territory. PEG 0.51 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 20 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $283.60 (implying +28% upside).
Moat
Net margin 16% beats the market median by a meaningful margin — the company is keeping more of every revenue dollar than the average S&P constituent. $60.1b 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
Free cash flow is negative (-$3.8b) — capital raises or debt issuance likely required; dilution / leverage risk. Trailing P/E 172.7x prices in sustained high growth — any quarter that disappoints triggers sharp re-rating. Beta 1.46 implies above-market volatility — position-size to the drawdowns this name will produce in a market correction, not to its bull-case return.
RDDTReddit, Inc.
Internet Content & Information · $159.91 · beta 2.05
Why now
Internet Content & Information · market cap $30.8b. Down 39% from 52-week high of $263.50 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +67% — in hypergrowth territory. PEG 0.78 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 33 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $213.71 (implying +34% upside).
Moat
Net margin 31% is exceptional — pricing-power territory rare outside premium software, branded staples, and specialty pharma. ROE 27% — top-decile capital efficiency. Either pricing leverage, low capital intensity, or aggressive buybacks; the durability story depends on which. FCF converts 117% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash.
Risk
Down 39% from the 52-week high — the market is pricing in something the screen can't see; verify the bear case before sizing up. Beta 2.05 implies above-market volatility — position-size to the drawdowns this name will produce in a market correction, not to its bull-case return. Trailing P/E 37x sits well above the S&P median (~20x) — multiple compression is a real risk if revenue growth decelerates.
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 NBIS and RDDT diverge
On the headline score the gap is 33.7 points in favor of RDDT. The widest single difference is Quality, where RDDT leads by 49.0 points.
QualityNBIS 29.9 · RDDT 78.9RDDT +49.0
ValueNBIS 18.8 · RDDT 60.8RDDT +42.0
GrowthNBIS 100.0 · RDDT 99.1level
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 RDDT or NBIS the better stock?
RDDT scores higher: RDDT 72.0, NBIS 38.3 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 RDDT and NBIS differ most?
The widest gap is quality, where RDDT leads by 49 points on the 0–100 pillar scale. RDDT also leads value, while growth is effectively level between them.
How are RDDT and NBIS 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.