Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. UBER scored 79.1, DAVE scored 84.2 — DAVE leads.
Compare another set
UBER
Uber Technologies, Inc.
Software - Application · Quality-Growth
79.1
$71.51 · $146.1B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
5.1
DAVE leads
DAVE
Dave Inc.
Software - Application · Quality-Growth
84.2
$368.42 · $4.7B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestUBER15.7x
Fastest growthDAVE+59.7%
Strongest balance sheetUBER0.52
Highest qualityDAVE76 / 100
Largest discount to fair valueUBER-25%
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)
UBER
stronger →← stronger
DAVE
75
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
76
91
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
99
72
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
80
DAVE is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
UBER
DAVE
$10.1bA-
FCF
$319mC
+16.7%B+
Rev
+59.7%A
0.52B
D/E
1.29C
15.7xA-
P/E
23.8xB+
5.99D
PEG
0.85B+
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
UBER
DAVE
25% below
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
3% above
~8%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~16%/yr
+2%
1-yr DCF upside
-25%
+33%
5-yr DCF upside
-3%
+92%
10-yr DCF upside
+36%
These two disagree on this pair: the Value pillar ranks cheapness against sector peers, while price-vs-fair-value is an absolute read. A name can be the better value in its sector and still the dearer one on cash flows.
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
UBER
Why this score
Buying back stock
DAVE
Why this score
Durable high returns
Diluting shareholders
The companies
UBERUber Technologies, Inc.
Software - Application · $71.51 · beta 1.26
Why now
Software - Application · market cap $146.1b. Down 29% from 52-week high of $100.35 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +17%, comfortably above the S&P median. 46 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $100.86 (implying +41% upside).
Moat
Net margin 17% beats the market median by a meaningful margin — the company is keeping more of every revenue dollar than the average S&P constituent. ROE 35% — top-decile capital efficiency. Either pricing leverage, low capital intensity, or aggressive buybacks; the durability story depends on which. FCF converts 106% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash.
Risk
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.
DAVEDave Inc.
Software - Application · $368.42 · beta 3.93
Why now
Software - Application · market cap $4.7b. 20% off the 52-week high of $458.25. Revenue growing +60% — in hypergrowth territory. PEG 0.85 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 14 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $444.21 (implying +21% upside).
Moat
Net margin 35% is exceptional — pricing-power territory rare outside premium software, branded staples, and specialty pharma. FCF converts 143% 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 3.93 implies above-market volatility — position-size to the drawdowns this name will produce in a market correction, not to its bull-case return. SaaS displacement — recurring revenue is sticky in good times but accelerates in churn during a downturn as customers consolidate vendors and renegotiate seat counts.
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 UBER and DAVE diverge
On the headline score the gap is 5.1 points in favor of DAVE. The widest single difference is Value, where DAVE leads by 8.0 points.
ValueUBER 72.2 · DAVE 80.2DAVE +8.0
GrowthUBER 90.9 · DAVE 98.6DAVE +7.7
QualityUBER 75.3 · DAVE 75.5level
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 DAVE or UBER the better stock?
DAVE scores higher: DAVE 84.2, UBER 79.1 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 DAVE and UBER differ most?
The widest gap is value, where DAVE leads by 8 points on the 0–100 pillar scale. DAVE also leads growth, while quality is effectively level between them.
How are DAVE and UBER 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.