Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. NTES scored 55.6, NFLX scored 81.2 — NFLX leads.
Compare another set
Different reporting periods. NFLX's fundamentals are as of June 2026, but NTES'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.
NTES
NetEase, Inc.
Electronic Gaming & Multimedia · Quality-Growth
55.6
$124.24 · $79.6B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
25.6
NFLX leads
NFLX
Netflix, Inc.
Entertainment · Quality-Growth
81.2
$70.30 · $292.7B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestNTES17.3x
Fastest growthNFLX+16.0%
Strongest balance sheetNTES0.07
Highest qualityNFLX92 / 100
Largest discount to fair valueNTES-48%
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)
NTES
stronger →← stronger
NFLX
88
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
92
67
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
89
53
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
65
NFLX is stronger on 3 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
NTES
NFLX
$7.5bB+
FCF
$11.2bA-
+7.0%C+
Rev
+16.0%B+
0.07A
D/E
0.55B+
17.3xB
P/E
22.1xB
1.19B+
PEG
1.22B
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
NTES
NFLX
48% below
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
117% above
~-9%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~30%/yr
+79%
1-yr DCF upside
-59%
+91%
5-yr DCF upside
-54%
+111%
10-yr DCF upside
-47%
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.
Electronic Gaming & Multimedia · market cap $79.6b. 19% off the 52-week high of $153.54. 33 sell-side analysts rate this a Strong Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $163.07 (implying +31% upside).
Moat
Net margin 31% is exceptional — pricing-power territory rare outside premium software, branded staples, and specialty pharma. ROE 22% is above 15% — the equity base is compounding at a rate the market struggles to discount accurately. FCF converts 154% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash.
Risk
Mature compounder — the risk is paying up for quality at a moment when growth is decelerating. Watch for sequential revenue + margin trends; the inflection from "compounder" to "ex-compounder" is hard to spot until the multiple already started compressing.
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.
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 NTES and NFLX diverge
On the headline score the gap is 25.6 points in favor of NFLX. The widest single difference is Growth, where NFLX leads by 21.6 points.
GrowthNTES 67.0 · NFLX 88.6NFLX +21.6
ValueNTES 52.6 · NFLX 65.4NFLX +12.8
QualityNTES 88.3 · NFLX 92.3NFLX +4.0
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 NFLX or NTES the better stock?
NFLX scores higher: NFLX 81.2, NTES 55.6 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 NTES differ most?
The widest gap is growth, where NFLX leads by 22 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 NTES 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.