Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. OTEX scored 47.2, GRND scored 90.4 — GRND leads.
Compare another set
OTEX
Open Text Corporation
Software - Application · Quality-Growth
47.2
$23.70 · $5.7B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
43.2
GRND leads
GRND
Grindr Inc.
Software - Application · Quality-Growth
90.4
$15.03 · $2.6B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestOTEX9.2x
Fastest growthGRND+32.4%
Highest qualityGRND94 / 100
Largest discount to fair valueOTEX-49%
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)
OTEX
stronger →← stronger
GRND
68
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
94
31
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
96
50
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
82
GRND is stronger on 3 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
OTEX
GRND
$808mC+
FCF
$154mC
+1.5%C
Rev
+32.4%A
1.49C
D/E
Negative equity
9.2xA
P/E
32.0xB
—
PEG
1.13B+
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
OTEX
GRND
49% below
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
27% below
~-13%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~7%/yr
+101%
1-yr DCF upside
+5%
+95%
5-yr DCF upside
+37%
+87%
10-yr DCF upside
+102%
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
OTEX
Why this score
Buying back stock
GRND
Why this score
Buying back stock
Durable high returns
The companies
OTEXOpen Text Corporation
Software - Application · $23.70 · beta 1.02
Why now
Software - Application · market cap $5.7b. Down 41% from 52-week high of $39.90 — deep drawdown territory. 11 sell-side analysts rate this a Hold with a mean 1-yr target of $27.95 (implying +18% upside).
Moat
Net margin 12% beats the market median by a meaningful margin — the company is keeping more of every revenue dollar than the average S&P constituent. ROE 16% is above 15% — the equity base is compounding at a rate the market struggles to discount accurately. FCF converts 126% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash.
Risk
Down 41% from the 52-week high — the market is pricing in something the screen can't see; verify the bear case before sizing up. Software — competitive moat is durable until it isn't; watch net revenue retention, gross margin trends, and any new market entrant with a fundamentally lower price point.
GRNDGrindr Inc.
Software - Application · $15.03 · beta 0.19
Why now
Software - Application · market cap $2.6b. 19% off the 52-week high of $18.50. Revenue growing +32% — in hypergrowth territory. 5 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $20.80 (implying +38% upside).
Moat
Net margin 19% beats the market median by a meaningful margin — the company is keeping more of every revenue dollar than the average S&P constituent. FCF converts 161% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash. Software economics — recurring revenue, embedded customer workflows, and high gross margin all compound the moat once a base account is won. Switching costs are the lever.
Risk
Trailing P/E 32x sits well above the S&P median (~20x) — multiple compression is a real risk if revenue growth decelerates. Software — competitive moat is durable until it isn't; watch net revenue retention, gross margin trends, and any new market entrant with a fundamentally lower price point.
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 OTEX and GRND diverge
On the headline score the gap is 43.2 points in favor of GRND. The widest single difference is Growth, where GRND leads by 65.5 points.
GrowthOTEX 30.8 · GRND 96.3GRND +65.5
ValueOTEX 49.9 · GRND 81.9GRND +32.0
QualityOTEX 68.3 · GRND 93.7GRND +25.4
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 GRND or OTEX the better stock?
GRND scores higher: GRND 90.4, OTEX 47.2 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 GRND and OTEX differ most?
The widest gap is growth, where GRND leads by 66 points on the 0–100 pillar scale. GRND leads all three pillars, so the gap is broad rather than a single-measure difference.
How are GRND and OTEX 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.