Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. ROKU scored 48.3, NFLX scored 81.2 — NFLX leads.
Compare another set
ROKU
Roku, Inc.
Entertainment · Quality-Growth
48.3
$152.85 · $22.7B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
32.9
NFLX leads
NFLX
Netflix, Inc.
Entertainment · Quality-Growth
81.2
$70.30 · $292.7B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestNFLX22.1x
Fastest growthROKU+18.5%
Strongest balance sheetROKU0.17
Highest qualityNFLX92 / 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)
ROKU
stronger →← stronger
NFLX
56
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
92
88
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
89
23
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
65
NFLX is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
ROKU
NFLX
$710mC+
FCF
$11.2bA-
+18.5%B+
Rev
+16.0%B+
0.17A-
D/E
0.55B+
65.0xC
P/E
22.1xB
0.60A-
PEG
1.22B
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
ROKU
NFLX
140% above
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
117% above
~39%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~30%/yr
-66%
1-yr DCF upside
-59%
-58%
5-yr DCF upside
-54%
-44%
10-yr DCF upside
-47%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
ROKU
Why this score
Diluting shareholders
NFLX
Why this score
Durable high returns
The companies
ROKURoku, Inc.
Entertainment · $152.85 · beta 2.05
Why now
Entertainment · market cap $22.7b. 4% off the 52-week high of $159.89. Revenue growing +19%, comfortably above the S&P median. PEG 0.60 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 20 sell-side analysts rate this a Hold with a mean 1-yr target of $162.33 (implying +6% upside).
Moat
ROE 13% meets the long-run market sustainable threshold — solid but not differentiated; the durability comes from elsewhere. FCF converts 200% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash.
Risk
Trailing P/E 65.0x prices in sustained high growth — any quarter that disappoints triggers sharp re-rating. 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.
NFLXNetflix, Inc.
Entertainment · $70.30 · beta 1.61
Why now
Entertainment · market cap $292.7b. Down 44% from 52-week high of $124.86 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +16%, comfortably above the S&P median. 45 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $92.55 (implying +32% 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 45% — top-decile capital efficiency. Either pricing leverage, low capital intensity, or aggressive buybacks; the durability story depends on which. $292.7b market cap places it among the largest companies in the sector — distribution, R&D, and customer-acquisition costs amortize across a base peers can't replicate.
Risk
Down 44% from the 52-week high — the market is pricing in something the screen can't see; verify the bear case before sizing up. Beta 1.61 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
The model favors NFLX (75) due to its significantly higher Quality pillar score of 93, compared to ROKU's 56, and its "Durable high returns" signal. A contrarian, however, might prefer ROKU (63.5) for its superior PEG ratio of 0.61 (A-), offering more growth for the price, despite the "Diluting shareholders" caution.
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 ROKU and NFLX diverge
On the headline score the gap is 32.9 points in favor of NFLX. The widest single difference is Value, where NFLX leads by 42.4 points.
ValueROKU 23.0 · NFLX 65.4NFLX +42.4
QualityROKU 55.6 · NFLX 92.3NFLX +36.7
GrowthROKU 88.2 · NFLX 88.6level
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 NFLX or ROKU the better stock?
NFLX scores higher: NFLX 81.2, ROKU 48.3 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 NFLX and ROKU differ most?
The widest gap is value, where NFLX leads by 42 points on the 0–100 pillar scale. NFLX also leads quality, while growth is effectively level between them.
How are NFLX and ROKU 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.