Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. OPRA scored 74.5, Z scored 38.0 — OPRA leads.
Compare another set
Different reporting periods. Z'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.
OPRA
Opera Limited
Internet Content & Information · Quality-Growth
74.5
$17.58 · $1.6B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
36.5
OPRA leads
Z
Zillow Group, Inc.
Internet Content & Information · Quality-Growth
38
$29.01 · $6.5B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestOPRA12.1x
Fastest growthOPRA+27.9%
Strongest balance sheetOPRA0.01
Highest qualityOPRA69 / 100
Largest discount to fair valueOPRA-30%
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)
OPRA
stronger →← stronger
Z
69
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
34
95
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
85
63
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
19
OPRA is stronger on 3 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
OPRA
Z
$112mC
FCF
$258mC
+27.9%A-
Rev
+17.7%B+
0.01A
D/E
0.13A-
12.1xB+
P/E
126.1xD
0.55A-
PEG
0.93B+
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
OPRA
Z
30% below
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
105% above
~6%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~32%/yr
+11%
1-yr DCF upside
-59%
+43%
5-yr DCF upside
-51%
+108%
10-yr DCF upside
-39%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
OPRA
Why this score
Cut its dividend
Z
Why this score
Diluting shareholders
The companies
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.
ZZillow Group, Inc.
Internet Content & Information · $29.01 · beta 2.02
Why now
Internet Content & Information · market cap $6.5b. Down 63% from 52-week high of $79.40 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +18%, comfortably above the S&P median. PEG 0.93 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 6 sell-side analysts publish a mean 1-yr target of $46.00 (implying +59% upside).
Moat
Free cash flow runs well ahead of reported net income.
Risk
Trailing P/E 126.1x prices in sustained high growth — any quarter that disappoints triggers sharp re-rating. Down 63% from the 52-week high — the market is pricing in something the screen can't see; verify the bear case before sizing up. Beta 2.02 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 OPRA and Z diverge
On the headline score the gap is 36.5 points in favor of OPRA. The widest single difference is Value, where OPRA leads by 44.2 points.
ValueOPRA 63.0 · Z 18.8OPRA +44.2
QualityOPRA 68.9 · Z 34.4OPRA +34.5
GrowthOPRA 95.4 · Z 84.7OPRA +10.7
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 Z the better stock?
OPRA scores higher: OPRA 74.5, Z 38.0 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 Z differ most?
The widest gap is value, where OPRA leads by 44 points on the 0–100 pillar scale. OPRA leads all three pillars, so the gap is broad rather than a single-measure difference.
How are OPRA and Z 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.