Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. RDDT scored 72.0, Z scored 38.0 — RDDT leads.
Compare another set
RDDT
Reddit, Inc.
Internet Content & Information · Quality-Growth
72
$159.91 · $30.8B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
34.0
RDDT leads
Z
Zillow Group, Inc.
Internet Content & Information · Quality-Growth
38
$29.01 · $6.5B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestRDDT37.2x
Fastest growthRDDT+66.6%
Strongest balance sheetRDDT0.01
Highest qualityRDDT79 / 100
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)
RDDT
stronger →← stronger
Z
79
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
34
99
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
85
61
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
19
RDDT is stronger on 3 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
RDDT
Z
$1.0bC+
FCF
$258mC
+66.6%A
Rev
+17.7%B+
0.01A
D/E
0.13A-
37.2xC
P/E
126.1xD
0.78A-
PEG
0.93B+
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
Z
112% above
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
105% above
~37%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~32%/yr
-63%
1-yr DCF upside
-59%
-53%
5-yr DCF upside
-51%
-34%
10-yr DCF upside
-39%
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
Z
Why this score
Diluting shareholders
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.
ZZillow Group, Inc.
Internet Content & Information · $29.01 · beta 2.02
Why now
Internet Content & Information · market cap $6.5b. Down 63% from 52-week high of $79.40 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +18%, comfortably above the S&P median. PEG 0.93 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 6 sell-side analysts publish a mean 1-yr target of $46.00 (implying +59% upside).
Moat
Free cash flow runs well ahead of reported net income.
Risk
Trailing P/E 126.1x prices in sustained high growth — any quarter that disappoints triggers sharp re-rating. Down 63% from the 52-week high — the market is pricing in something the screen can't see; verify the bear case before sizing up. Beta 2.02 implies above-market volatility — position-size to the drawdowns this name will produce in a market correction, not to its bull-case return.
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 Z diverge
On the headline score the gap is 34.0 points in favor of RDDT. The widest single difference is Quality, where RDDT leads by 44.5 points.
QualityRDDT 78.9 · Z 34.4RDDT +44.5
ValueRDDT 60.8 · Z 18.8RDDT +42.0
GrowthRDDT 99.1 · Z 84.7RDDT +14.4
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 RDDT or Z the better stock?
RDDT scores higher: RDDT 72.0, Z 38.0 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 Z differ most?
The widest gap is quality, where RDDT leads by 45 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 Z 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.