Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. PRGS scored 67.9, ADBE scored 85.4 — ADBE leads.
Compare another set
PRGS
Progress Software Corporation
Software - Infrastructure · Quality-Growth
67.9
$39.33 · $1.6B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
17.5
ADBE leads
ADBE
Adobe Inc.
Software - Application · Quality-Growth
85.4
$242.27 · $94.3B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestADBE13.5x
Fastest growthADBE+10.5%
Strongest balance sheetADBE0.58
Highest qualityADBE92 / 100
Largest discount to fair valuePRGS-76%
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)
PRGS
stronger →← stronger
ADBE
67
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
92
66
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
80
71
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
85
ADBE is stronger on 3 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
PRGS
ADBE
$319mC
FCF
$10.6bA-
+6.4%C+
Rev
+10.5%B
2.39D
D/E
0.58C+
18.1xA-
P/E
13.5xA-
1.10B+
PEG
0.58A-
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
PRGS
ADBE
76% below
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
35% below
~-23%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~-2%/yr
+261%
1-yr DCF upside
+37%
+322%
5-yr DCF upside
+53%
+431%
10-yr DCF upside
+80%
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
PRGS
Why this score
Buying back stock
ADBE
Why this score
Buying back stock
Durable high returns
The companies
PRGSProgress Software Corporation
Software - Infrastructure · $39.33 · beta 0.89
Why now
Software - Infrastructure · market cap $1.6b. 17% off the 52-week high of $47.25. 5 sell-side analysts rate this a Strong Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $56.20 (implying +43% upside).
Moat
ROE 17% is above 15% — the equity base is compounding at a rate the market struggles to discount accurately. Free cash flow runs well ahead of reported net income, mostly because of depreciation and amortization ($148m) — non-cash charges that hold down reported earnings while cash generation stays strong. 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
D/E 2.39 is elevated — limits strategic flexibility and raises refinancing exposure if rates stay higher for longer. 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.
ADBEAdobe Inc.
Software - Application · $242.27 · beta 1.42
Why now
Software - Application · market cap $94.3b. Down 33% from 52-week high of $363.70 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +11%, comfortably above the S&P median. PEG 0.58 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 32 sell-side analysts rate this a Hold with a mean 1-yr target of $275.06 (implying +14% 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 62% — top-decile capital efficiency. Either pricing leverage, low capital intensity, or aggressive buybacks; the durability story depends on which. FCF converts 145% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash.
Risk
Down 33% from the 52-week high — the market is pricing in something the screen can't see; verify the bear case before sizing up. Beta 1.42 implies above-market volatility — position-size to the drawdowns this name will produce in a market correction, not to its bull-case return. 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 PRGS and ADBE diverge
On the headline score the gap is 17.5 points in favor of ADBE. The widest single difference is Quality, where ADBE leads by 24.8 points.
QualityPRGS 67.3 · ADBE 92.1ADBE +24.8
GrowthPRGS 65.6 · ADBE 79.7ADBE +14.1
ValuePRGS 70.9 · ADBE 84.8ADBE +13.9
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 ADBE or PRGS the better stock?
ADBE scores higher: ADBE 85.4, PRGS 67.9 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 ADBE and PRGS differ most?
The widest gap is quality, where ADBE leads by 25 points on the 0–100 pillar scale. ADBE leads all three pillars, so the gap is broad rather than a single-measure difference.
How are ADBE and PRGS 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.