Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. PEGA scored 65.2, DAVE scored 84.2 — DAVE leads.
Compare another set
PEGA
Pegasystems Inc.
Software - Application · Quality-Growth
65.2
$35.65 · $5.9B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
19.0
DAVE leads
DAVE
Dave Inc.
Software - Application · Quality-Growth
84.2
$368.42 · $4.7B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestPEGA20.0x
Fastest growthDAVE+59.7%
Strongest balance sheetPEGA0.13
Highest qualityPEGA91 / 100
Largest discount to fair valuePEGA-32%
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)
PEGA
stronger →← stronger
DAVE
91
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
76
56
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
99
54
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
80
DAVE is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
PEGA
DAVE
$493mC
FCF
$319mC
+3.6%C+
Rev
+59.7%A
0.13B+
D/E
1.29C
20.0xB+
P/E
23.8xB+
2.99C
PEG
0.85B+
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
PEGA
DAVE
32% below
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
3% above
~-4%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~16%/yr
+41%
1-yr DCF upside
-25%
+47%
5-yr DCF upside
-3%
+57%
10-yr DCF upside
+36%
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
PEGA
Why this score
Buying back stock
Raising its dividend
Durable high returns
DAVE
Why this score
Durable high returns
Diluting shareholders
The companies
PEGAPegasystems Inc.
Software - Application · $35.65 · beta 0.89
Why now
Software - Application · market cap $5.9b. Down 48% from 52-week high of $68.10 — deep drawdown territory. 7 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $41.43 (implying +16% 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. ROE 58% — top-decile capital efficiency. Either pricing leverage, low capital intensity, or aggressive buybacks; the durability story depends on which. FCF converts 152% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash.
Risk
Down 48% 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.
DAVEDave Inc.
Software - Application · $368.42 · beta 3.93
Why now
Software - Application · market cap $4.7b. 20% off the 52-week high of $458.25. Revenue growing +60% — in hypergrowth territory. PEG 0.85 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 14 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $444.21 (implying +21% upside).
Moat
Net margin 35% is exceptional — pricing-power territory rare outside premium software, branded staples, and specialty pharma. FCF converts 143% 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
Beta 3.93 implies above-market volatility — position-size to the drawdowns this name will produce in a market correction, not to its bull-case return. SaaS displacement — recurring revenue is sticky in good times but accelerates in churn during a downturn as customers consolidate vendors and renegotiate seat counts.
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 PEGA and DAVE diverge
On the headline score the gap is 19.0 points in favor of DAVE. They get there differently, though — each leads on a different pillar, so the better pick depends on which you weight.
GrowthPEGA 56.0 · DAVE 98.6DAVE +42.6
ValuePEGA 54.2 · DAVE 80.2DAVE +26.0
QualityPEGA 91.2 · DAVE 75.5PEGA +15.7
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 DAVE or PEGA the better stock?
DAVE scores higher: DAVE 84.2, PEGA 65.2 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 DAVE and PEGA differ most?
The widest gap is growth, where DAVE leads by 43 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 DAVE and PEGA 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.