Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. PINS scored 59.3, OPRA scored 74.5 — OPRA leads.
Compare another set
Different reporting periods. PINS'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.
PINS
Pinterest, Inc.
Internet Content & Information · Quality-Growth
59.3
$21.40 · $12.1B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
15.2
OPRA leads
OPRA
Opera Limited
Internet Content & Information · Quality-Growth
74.5
$17.58 · $1.6B
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 valuePINS-58%
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)
PINS
stronger →← stronger
OPRA
62
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
69
90
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
95
37
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
63
OPRA is stronger on 3 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
PINS
OPRA
$1.3bC+
FCF
$112mC
+16.6%B+
Rev
+27.9%A-
0.41B+
D/E
0.01A
61.1xC
P/E
12.1xB+
0.27A
PEG
0.55A-
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
PINS
OPRA
58% below
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
30% below
~-9%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~6%/yr
+95%
1-yr DCF upside
+11%
+136%
5-yr DCF upside
+43%
+212%
10-yr DCF upside
+108%
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
PINS
No notable signals flagged.
OPRA
Why this score
Cut its dividend
The companies
PINSPinterest, Inc.
Internet Content & Information · $21.40 · beta 0.90
Why now
Internet Content & Information · market cap $12.1b. Down 40% from 52-week high of $35.42 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +17%, comfortably above the S&P median. PEG 0.27 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 35 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $29.05 (implying +36% upside).
Moat
Free cash flow runs well ahead of reported net income, mostly because of stock-based pay ($1.0b) — a real cost to shareholders, paid in shares rather than cash.
Risk
Trailing P/E 61.1x prices in sustained high growth — any quarter that disappoints triggers sharp re-rating. Down 40% from the 52-week high — the market is pricing in something the screen can't see; verify the bear case before sizing up.
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.
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 PINS and OPRA diverge
On the headline score the gap is 15.2 points in favor of OPRA. The widest single difference is Value, where OPRA leads by 25.8 points.
ValuePINS 37.2 · OPRA 63.0OPRA +25.8
QualityPINS 62.5 · OPRA 68.9OPRA +6.4
GrowthPINS 90.0 · OPRA 95.4OPRA +5.4
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 OPRA or PINS the better stock?
OPRA scores higher: OPRA 74.5, PINS 59.3 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 PINS differ most?
The widest gap is value, where OPRA leads by 26 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 PINS 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.