Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. TOST scored 71.7, EEFT scored 70.9 — TOST leads.
Compare another set
TOST
Toast, Inc.
Software - Infrastructure · Quality-Growth
71.7
$31.31 · $18.1B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
0.8
TOST leads
EEFT
Euronet Worldwide, Inc.
Software - Infrastructure · Quality-Growth
70.9
$64.60 · $2.4B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestEEFT10.3x
Fastest growthTOST+23.0%
Strongest balance sheetTOST0.00
Highest qualityTOST72 / 100
Largest discount to fair valueEEFT-55%
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)
TOST
stronger →← stronger
EEFT
72
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
65
94
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
65
55
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
84
TOST is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
TOST
EEFT
$576mC+
FCF
$269mC
+23.0%A-
Rev
+6.4%C+
0.00A
D/E
2.25D
39.6xC+
P/E
10.3xA
0.23A
PEG
0.41A
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
TOST
EEFT
117% above
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
55% below
~37%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~-11%/yr
-64%
1-yr DCF upside
+102%
-54%
5-yr DCF upside
+122%
-35%
10-yr DCF upside
+157%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
TOST
Why this score
Diluting shareholders
EEFT
Why this score
Buying back stock
Durable high returns
The companies
TOSTToast, Inc.
Software - Infrastructure · $31.31 · beta 1.74
Why now
Software - Infrastructure · market cap $18.1b. Down 21% from 52-week high of $39.73 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +23%, comfortably above the S&P median. PEG 0.23 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 26 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $38.92 (implying +24% upside).
Moat
ROE 24% is above 15% — the equity base is compounding at a rate the market struggles to discount accurately. FCF converts 119% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash. 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
Beta 1.74 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 40x sits well above the S&P median (~20x) — multiple compression is a real risk if revenue growth decelerates. 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.
EEFTEuronet Worldwide, Inc.
Software - Infrastructure · $64.60 · beta 0.84
Why now
Software - Infrastructure · market cap $2.4b. Down 28% from 52-week high of $89.44 — deep drawdown territory. PEG 0.41 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 6 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $84.67 (implying +31% upside).
Moat
ROE 22% is above 15% — the equity base is compounding at a rate the market struggles to discount accurately. 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 2.25 is elevated — limits strategic flexibility and raises refinancing exposure if rates stay higher for longer. Customer concentration — many software businesses depend on a handful of enterprise accounts; the loss of one $10M+ contract can swing the next quarter's growth narrative.
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 TOST and EEFT diverge
On the headline score the gap is 0.8 points in favor of TOST. They get there differently, though — each leads on a different pillar, so the better pick depends on which you weight.
ValueTOST 54.5 · EEFT 84.0EEFT +29.5
GrowthTOST 94.3 · EEFT 65.0TOST +29.3
QualityTOST 71.7 · EEFT 65.2TOST +6.5
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 TOST or EEFT the better stock?
TOST scores higher: TOST 71.7, EEFT 70.9 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 TOST and EEFT differ most?
The widest gap is value, where EEFT leads by 30 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 TOST and EEFT 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.