Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. UI scored 66.1, ZBRA scored 67.2 — ZBRA leads.
Compare another set
UI
Ubiquiti Inc.
Communication Equipment · Quality-Growth
66.1
$657.29 · $39.8B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
1.1
ZBRA leads
ZBRA
Zebra Technologies Corporation
Communication Equipment · Quality-Growth
67.2
$387.18 · $18.3B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestZBRA35.5x
Fastest growthUI+27.2%
Strongest balance sheetUI0.06
Highest qualityUI89 / 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)
UI
stronger →← stronger
ZBRA
89
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
77
81
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
76
40
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
52
UI is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
UI
ZBRA
$909mC+
FCF
$904mC+
+27.2%A-
Rev
+12.7%B+
0.06A-
D/E
0.86C+
41.5xC+
P/E
35.5xB
1.10B+
PEG
0.64A-
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
UI
ZBRA
210% above
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
91% above
~39%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~22%/yr
-71%
1-yr DCF upside
-49%
-68%
5-yr DCF upside
-48%
-63%
10-yr DCF upside
-46%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
UI
Why this score
Raising its dividend
Durable high returns
ZBRA
Why this score
Buying back stock
The companies
UIUbiquiti Inc.
Communication Equipment · $657.29 · beta 1.31
Why now
Communication Equipment · market cap $39.8b. Down 40% from 52-week high of $1099.99 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +27% — in hypergrowth territory.
Moat
Net margin 29% sits well above the S&P median (~11%) — suggests structural pricing advantage or cost discipline competitors can't quickly close. ROE 67% — top-decile capital efficiency. Either pricing leverage, low capital intensity, or aggressive buybacks; the durability story depends on which.
Risk
Down 40% from the 52-week high — the market is pricing in something the screen can't see; verify the bear case before sizing up. Trailing P/E 41x sits well above the S&P median (~20x) — multiple compression is a real risk if revenue growth decelerates. P/S 12.2x embeds aggressive forward growth — disappointing top-line guidance would compress the multiple hard.
ZBRAZebra Technologies Corporation
Communication Equipment · $387.18 · beta 1.58
Why now
Communication Equipment · market cap $18.3b. Trading near 52-week high of $390.80 — momentum setup, limited technical margin of safety. Revenue growing +13%, comfortably above the S&P median. PEG 0.64 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 15 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $413.85 (implying +7% upside).
Moat
ROE 16% is above 15% — the equity base is compounding at a rate the market struggles to discount accurately. FCF converts 168% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash.
Risk
Trading within 1% of the 52-week high — limited technical margin of safety; a momentum reversal would test conviction. Beta 1.58 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 35x sits well above the S&P median (~20x) — multiple compression is a real risk if revenue growth decelerates.
Verdict — model-derived comparison
The model favors ZBRA (70.7) over UI (66) primarily due to its superior Value pillar of 68, which is 30 points higher than UI's 38, reflecting its 84% price versus DCF fair value. A contrarian, however, might prefer UI for its significantly higher Quality (88) and Growth (86) pillars, underscored by its A-grade revenue growth of +33.3% and A-grade debt/equity of 0.06, indicating a fundamentally stronger business.
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 UI and ZBRA diverge
On the headline score the gap is 1.1 points in favor of ZBRA. They get there differently, though — each leads on a different pillar, so the better pick depends on which you weight.
QualityUI 89.3 · ZBRA 76.9UI +12.4
ValueUI 40.0 · ZBRA 51.9ZBRA +11.9
GrowthUI 80.9 · ZBRA 76.1UI +4.8
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 ZBRA or UI the better stock?
ZBRA scores higher: ZBRA 67.2, UI 66.1 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 ZBRA and UI differ most?
The widest gap is quality, where UI leads by 12 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 ZBRA and UI 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.