Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. VRSK scored 67.0, CMPR scored 69.3 — CMPR leads.
Compare another set
Different reporting periods. CMPR'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
2.3
CMPR leads
CMPR
Cimpress plc
Specialty Business Services · Quality-Growth
69.3
$74.21 · $1.8B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestCMPR19.6x
Fastest growthCMPR+9.8%
Highest qualityVRSK91 / 100
Largest discount to fair valueVRSK-1%
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
CMPR
91
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
66
62
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
68
53
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
74
CMPR is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
VRSK
CMPR
$1.1bC+
FCF
$116mC
+5.9%C+
Rev
+9.8%B
Negative equity
D/E
Negative equity
27.3xB
P/E
19.6xB+
1.48B
PEG
2.38C
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
CMPR
1% below
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
51% above
~5%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~18%/yr
-2%
1-yr DCF upside
-38%
+1%
5-yr DCF upside
-34%
+6%
10-yr DCF upside
-28%
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
VRSK
Why this score
Buying back stock
Raising its dividend
Durable high returns
CMPR
Why this score
Durable high returns
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.
CMPRCimpress plc
Specialty Business Services · $74.21 · beta 1.82
Why now
Specialty Business Services · market cap $1.8b. Down 30% from 52-week high of $106.58 — deep drawdown territory.
Moat
FCF converts 121% 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. Beta 1.82 implies above-market volatility — position-size to the drawdowns this name will produce in a market correction, not to its bull-case return. Net margin 2.6% is thin — operating leverage cuts both ways; input-cost inflation or pricing pressure hits the bottom line first.
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 CMPR diverge
On the headline score the gap is 2.3 points in favor of CMPR. They get there differently, though — each leads on a different pillar, so the better pick depends on which you weight.
QualityVRSK 91.2 · CMPR 65.5VRSK +25.7
ValueVRSK 52.9 · CMPR 74.2CMPR +21.3
GrowthVRSK 62.2 · CMPR 68.4CMPR +6.2
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 CMPR or VRSK the better stock?
CMPR scores higher: CMPR 69.3, VRSK 67.0 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 CMPR and VRSK differ most?
The widest gap is quality, where VRSK leads by 26 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 CMPR and VRSK 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.