Electronic Gaming & Multimedia · market cap $39.9b. 20% off the 52-week high of $265.94. Revenue growing +15%, comfortably above the S&P median. 29 sell-side analysts rate this a Strong Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $286.44 (implying +34% 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 -4.8%) — path to GAAP profitability is the core thesis risk. ROE -9% 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.
CARGCarGurus, Inc.
Internet Content & Information · $28.85 · beta 1.22
Why now
Internet Content & Information · market cap $2.6b. Down 30% from 52-week high of $41.22 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +14%, comfortably above the S&P median. PEG 0.63 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 11 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $41.27 (implying +43% upside).
Moat
Net margin 18% beats the market median by a meaningful margin — the company is keeping more of every revenue dollar than the average S&P constituent. ROE 53% — top-decile capital efficiency. Either pricing leverage, low capital intensity, or aggressive buybacks; the durability story depends on which. FCF converts 156% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash.
Risk
Down 30% from the 52-week high — the market is pricing in something the screen can't see; verify the bear case before sizing up.
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 TTWO and CARG diverge
On the headline score the gap is 55.3 points in favor of CARG. The widest single difference is Value, where CARG leads by 69.7 points.
ValueTTWO 9.4 · CARG 79.1CARG +69.7
QualityTTWO 25.6 · CARG 86.2CARG +60.6
GrowthTTWO 82.1 · CARG 82.1level
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 CARG or TTWO the better stock?
CARG scores higher: CARG 82.4, TTWO 27.1 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 CARG and TTWO differ most?
The widest gap is value, where CARG leads by 70 points on the 0–100 pillar scale. CARG also leads quality, while growth is effectively level between them.
How are CARG and TTWO 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.