Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. VRSK scored 67.0, CBZ scored 65.2 — VRSK leads.
Compare another set
Different reporting periods. CBZ's fundamentals are as of June 2026, but VRSK's are as of March 2026 — a 3-month gap. Growth, margin and valuation figures below therefore describe different windows and aren't strictly like-for-like.
VRSK
Verisk Analytics, Inc.
Consulting Services · Quality-Growth
67
$177.63 · $23.1B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
1.8
VRSK leads
CBZ
CBIZ, Inc.
Specialty Business Services · Quality-Growth
65.2
$54.82 · $3.0B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestCBZ26.4x
Fastest growthCBZ+52.1%
Highest qualityVRSK91 / 100
Largest discount to fair valueCBZ-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)
VRSK
stronger →← stronger
CBZ
91
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
44
62
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
87
53
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
72
CBZ is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
VRSK
CBZ
$1.1bC+
FCF
$274mC
+5.9%C+
Rev
+52.1%A
Negative equity
D/E
1.02C+
27.3xB
P/E
26.4xB
1.48B
PEG
1.22B
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
VRSK
CBZ
1% below
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
55% below
~5%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~-5%/yr
-2%
1-yr DCF upside
+72%
+1%
5-yr DCF upside
+120%
+6%
10-yr DCF upside
+216%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
VRSK
Why this score
Buying back stock
Raising its dividend
Durable high returns
CBZ
No notable signals flagged.
The companies
VRSKVerisk Analytics, Inc.
Consulting Services · $177.63 · beta 0.69
Why now
Consulting Services · market cap $23.1b. Down 28% from 52-week high of $245.69 — deep drawdown territory. 17 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $230.94 (implying +30% upside).
Moat
Net margin 29% sits well above the S&P median (~11%) — suggests structural pricing advantage or cost discipline competitors can't quickly close. FCF converts 124% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash.
Risk
Mature compounder — the risk is paying up for quality at a moment when growth is decelerating. Watch for sequential revenue + margin trends; the inflection from "compounder" to "ex-compounder" is hard to spot until the multiple already started compressing.
CBZCBIZ, Inc.
Specialty Business Services · $54.82 · beta 0.92
Why now
Specialty Business Services · market cap $3.0b. Trading near 52-week high of $56.41 — momentum setup, limited technical margin of safety. Revenue growing +52% — in hypergrowth territory.
Moat
Free cash flow runs well ahead of reported net income, mostly because of depreciation and amortization ($96m) — non-cash charges that hold down reported earnings while cash generation stays strong.
Risk
Trading within 3% of the 52-week high — limited technical margin of safety; a momentum reversal would test conviction. Net margin 4.4% is thin — operating leverage cuts both ways; input-cost inflation or pricing pressure hits the bottom line first. ROE 6% 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.
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 VRSK and CBZ diverge
On the headline score the gap is 1.8 points in favor of VRSK. They get there differently, though — each leads on a different pillar, so the better pick depends on which you weight.
QualityVRSK 91.2 · CBZ 44.5VRSK +46.7
GrowthVRSK 62.2 · CBZ 87.0CBZ +24.8
ValueVRSK 52.9 · CBZ 71.7CBZ +18.8
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 VRSK or CBZ the better stock?
VRSK scores higher: VRSK 67.0, CBZ 65.2 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 VRSK and CBZ differ most?
The widest gap is quality, where VRSK leads by 47 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 VRSK and CBZ 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.