Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. TEAM scored 37.5, ADBE scored 85.4 — ADBE leads.
Compare another set
TEAM
Atlassian Corporation
Software - Application · Quality-Growth
37.5
$206.79 · $52.3B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
47.9
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
Fastest growthTEAM+26.0%
Strongest balance sheetADBE0.58
Highest qualityADBE92 / 100
Largest discount to fair valueADBE-35%
Side by side · every name on one set of axes
The model, pillar by pillar (0–100 each)
TEAM
stronger →← stronger
ADBE
37
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
92
92
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
80
15
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
85
ADBE is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
TEAM
ADBE
$1.3bC+
FCF
$10.6bA-
+26.0%A-
Rev
+10.5%B
1.16C
D/E
0.58C+
8.0xC+
P/S
—
2.12C
PEG
0.58A-
—
P/E
13.5xA-
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
TEAM
ADBE
102% above
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
35% below
~34%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~-2%/yr
-62%
1-yr DCF upside
+37%
-51%
5-yr DCF upside
+53%
-28%
10-yr DCF upside
+80%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
TEAM
No notable signals flagged.
ADBE
Why this score
Buying back stock
Durable high returns
The companies
TEAMAtlassian Corporation
Software - Application · $206.79 · beta 1.23
Why now
Software - Application · market cap $52.3b. Trading near 52-week high of $207.37 — momentum setup, limited technical margin of safety. Revenue growing +26% — in hypergrowth territory. 31 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $207.49 (implying +0% upside).
Moat
$52.3b market cap gives the company enough scale to absorb fixed costs that subscale competitors can't, without yet being so large that growth has to come from acquisition. 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
Currently unprofitable (margin -0.8%) — path to GAAP profitability is the core thesis risk. Trading within 0% of the 52-week high — limited technical margin of safety; a momentum reversal would test conviction. ROE -5% 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.
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 TEAM and ADBE diverge
On the headline score the gap is 47.9 points in favor of ADBE. They get there differently, though — each leads on a different pillar, so the better pick depends on which you weight.
ValueTEAM 15.4 · ADBE 84.8ADBE +69.4
QualityTEAM 37.1 · ADBE 92.1ADBE +55.0
GrowthTEAM 92.1 · ADBE 79.7TEAM +12.4
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 ADBE or TEAM the better stock?
ADBE scores higher: ADBE 85.4, TEAM 37.5 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 TEAM differ most?
The widest gap is value, where ADBE leads by 69 points on the 0–100 pillar scale. Neither name sweeps: they trade the lead across the three pillars, so the comparison is a trade-off rather than one being better on every measure.
How are ADBE and TEAM 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.