Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. NFLX scored 81.2, TTWO scored 27.1 — NFLX leads.
Compare another set
NFLX
Netflix, Inc.
Entertainment · Quality-Growth
81.2
$70.30 · $292.7B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
54.1
NFLX leads
TTWO
Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc.
Electronic Gaming & Multimedia · Quality-Growth
27.1
$213.44 · $39.9B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
Fastest growthNFLX+16.0%
Strongest balance sheetNFLX0.55
Highest qualityNFLX92 / 100
Side by side · every name on one set of axes
The model, pillar by pillar (0–100 each)
NFLX
stronger →← stronger
TTWO
92
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
26
89
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
82
65
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
9
NFLX is stronger on 3 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
NFLX
TTWO
$11.2bA-
FCF
$338mC
+16.0%B+
Rev
+15.3%B+
0.55B+
D/E
0.82B
22.1xB
P/E
—
1.22B
PEG
2.87C
—
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
TTWO
117% above
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
507% above
~30%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~59%/yr
-59%
1-yr DCF upside
-86%
-54%
5-yr DCF upside
-84%
-47%
10-yr DCF upside
-80%
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
TTWO
No notable signals flagged.
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 $39.9b. 20% off the 52-week high of $265.94. Revenue growing +15%, comfortably above the S&P median. 29 sell-side analysts rate this a Strong Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $286.44 (implying +34% 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 -4.8%) — path to GAAP profitability is the core thesis risk. ROE -9% is below the long-run sustainable threshold of ~10% — capital efficiency would need to improve for the equity base to compound at the market rate.
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 TTWO diverge
On the headline score the gap is 54.1 points in favor of NFLX. The widest single difference is Quality, where NFLX leads by 66.7 points.
QualityNFLX 92.3 · TTWO 25.6NFLX +66.7
ValueNFLX 65.4 · TTWO 9.4NFLX +56.0
GrowthNFLX 88.6 · TTWO 82.1NFLX +6.5
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 TTWO the better stock?
NFLX scores higher: NFLX 81.2, TTWO 27.1 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 TTWO differ most?
The widest gap is quality, where NFLX leads by 67 points on the 0–100 pillar scale. NFLX leads all three pillars, so the gap is broad rather than a single-measure difference.
How are NFLX and TTWO 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.