Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. NFLX scored 81.2, RBLX scored 35.2 — NFLX leads.
Compare another set
NFLX
Netflix, Inc.
Entertainment · Quality-Growth
81.2
$70.30 · $292.7B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
46.0
NFLX leads
RBLX
Roblox Corporation
Electronic Gaming & Multimedia · Quality-Growth
35.2
$48.09 · $34.4B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
Fastest growthRBLX+41.3%
Highest qualityNFLX92 / 100
Side by side · every name on one set of axes
The model, pillar by pillar (0–100 each)
NFLX
stronger →← stronger
RBLX
92
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
31
89
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
97
65
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
14
NFLX is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
NFLX
RBLX
$11.2bA-
FCF
$1.6bC+
+16.0%B+
Rev
+41.3%A
0.55B+
D/E
—
22.1xB
P/E
—
1.22B
PEG
8.18D
—
P/S
6.0xC
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
NFLX
RBLX
117% above
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
24% above
~30%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~21%/yr
-59%
1-yr DCF upside
-38%
-54%
5-yr DCF upside
-19%
-47%
10-yr DCF upside
+15%
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
NFLX
Why this score
Durable high returns
RBLX
Why this score
Diluting shareholders
The companies
NFLXNetflix, Inc.
Entertainment · $70.30 · beta 1.61
Why now
Entertainment · market cap $292.7b. Down 44% from 52-week high of $124.86 — 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 $92.55 (implying +32% 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. $292.7b 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 44% from the 52-week high — the market is pricing in something the screen can't see; verify the bear case before sizing up. Beta 1.61 implies above-market volatility — position-size to the drawdowns this name will produce in a market correction, not to its bull-case return.
Electronic Gaming & Multimedia · market cap $34.4b. Down 66% from 52-week high of $141.95 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +41% — in hypergrowth territory. 34 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $48.97 (implying +2% upside).
Moat
Turnaround / out-of-favor name — GAAP-unprofitable for now, so the durability case is forward-looking: it rests on a recovery (margin normalization, a cyclical upturn or restructuring) or an un-monetized asset (IP / network effects / first-mover position) rather than on current reported results.
Risk
Currently unprofitable (margin -17.6%) — path to GAAP profitability is the core thesis risk. Down 66% from the 52-week high — the market is pricing in something the screen can't see; verify the bear case before sizing up. Beta 1.47 implies above-market volatility — position-size to the drawdowns this name will produce in a market correction, not to its bull-case return.
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 NFLX and RBLX diverge
On the headline score the gap is 46.0 points in favor of NFLX. They get there differently, though — each leads on a different pillar, so the better pick depends on which you weight.
QualityNFLX 92.3 · RBLX 31.3NFLX +61.0
ValueNFLX 65.4 · RBLX 14.4NFLX +51.0
GrowthNFLX 88.6 · RBLX 97.0RBLX +8.4
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 NFLX or RBLX the better stock?
NFLX scores higher: NFLX 81.2, RBLX 35.2 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 NFLX and RBLX differ most?
The widest gap is quality, where NFLX leads by 61 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 NFLX and RBLX 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.