Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. RDDT scored 72.0, STUB scored 39.7 — RDDT leads.
Compare another set
RDDT
Reddit, Inc.
Internet Content & Information · Quality-Growth
72
$159.91 · $30.8B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
32.3
RDDT leads
STUB
StubHub Holdings, Inc.
Internet Content & Information · Quality-Growth
39.7
$6.12 · $2.3B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
Fastest growthRDDT+66.6%
Strongest balance sheetRDDT0.01
Highest qualityRDDT79 / 100
Largest discount to fair valueSTUB-79%
Side by side · every name on one set of axes
The model, pillar by pillar (0–100 each)
RDDT
stronger →← stronger
STUB
79
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
36
99
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
60
61
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
29
RDDT is stronger on 3 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
RDDT
STUB
$1.0bC+
FCF
$634mC+
+66.6%A
Rev
+7.9%B
0.01A
D/E
0.67B
37.2xC
P/E
—
0.78A-
PEG
—
—
P/S
1.2xB+
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
RDDT
STUB
112% above
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
79% below
~37%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
decline
-63%
1-yr DCF upside
+334%
-53%
5-yr DCF upside
+382%
-34%
10-yr DCF upside
+461%
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
RDDT
Why this score
Diluting shareholders
Short track record
STUB
Why this score
Diluting shareholders
Short track record
The companies
RDDTReddit, Inc.
Internet Content & Information · $159.91 · beta 2.05
Why now
Internet Content & Information · market cap $30.8b. Down 39% from 52-week high of $263.50 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +67% — in hypergrowth territory. PEG 0.78 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 33 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $213.71 (implying +34% upside).
Moat
Net margin 31% is exceptional — pricing-power territory rare outside premium software, branded staples, and specialty pharma. ROE 27% — top-decile capital efficiency. Either pricing leverage, low capital intensity, or aggressive buybacks; the durability story depends on which. FCF converts 117% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash.
Risk
Down 39% from the 52-week high — the market is pricing in something the screen can't see; verify the bear case before sizing up. Beta 2.05 implies above-market volatility — position-size to the drawdowns this name will produce in a market correction, not to its bull-case return. Trailing P/E 37x sits well above the S&P median (~20x) — multiple compression is a real risk if revenue growth decelerates.
STUBStubHub Holdings, Inc.
Internet Content & Information · $6.12
Why now
Internet Content & Information · market cap $2.3b. Down 72% from 52-week high of $21.49 — deep drawdown territory. 12 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $10.96 (implying +79% upside).
Moat
Turnaround / out-of-favor name — GAAP-unprofitable for now, so the durability case is forward-looking: it rests on a recovery (margin normalization, a cyclical upturn or restructuring) or an un-monetized asset (IP / network effects / first-mover position) rather than on current reported results.
Risk
Currently unprofitable (margin -91.3%) — path to GAAP profitability is the core thesis risk. Down 72% from the 52-week high — the market is pricing in something the screen can't see; verify the bear case before sizing up. ROE -109% is below the long-run sustainable threshold of ~10% — capital efficiency would need to improve for the equity base to compound at the market rate.
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 RDDT and STUB diverge
On the headline score the gap is 32.3 points in favor of RDDT. The widest single difference is Quality, where RDDT leads by 43.2 points.
QualityRDDT 78.9 · STUB 35.7RDDT +43.2
GrowthRDDT 99.1 · STUB 60.3RDDT +38.8
ValueRDDT 60.8 · STUB 29.1RDDT +31.7
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 RDDT or STUB the better stock?
RDDT scores higher: RDDT 72.0, STUB 39.7 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 RDDT and STUB differ most?
The widest gap is quality, where RDDT leads by 43 points on the 0–100 pillar scale. RDDT leads all three pillars, so the gap is broad rather than a single-measure difference.
How are RDDT and STUB 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.