COMPARE · Data as of August 21, 2026
META vs WB
Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. META scored 79.1, WB scored 61.0 — META leads.
Compare another set
Different reporting periods. META's fundamentals are as of June 2026, but WB's are as of December 2025 — a 6-month gap. Growth, margin and valuation figures below therefore describe different windows and aren't strictly like-for-like.
META
Meta Platforms, Inc.
79.1
$549.90 · $1.4T
fundamentals as of
Score gap
18.1
META leads
WB
Weibo Corporation
61
$7.19 · $1.8B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
- CheapestWB6.2x
- Fastest growthMETA+27.7%
- Strongest balance sheetMETA0.43
- Highest qualityMETA86 / 100
- Largest discount to fair valueWB-78%
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)
META
stronger →← stronger
WB
86
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
72
92
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
39
62
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
81
META is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
META
WB
$41.0bA
FCF
$477mC
+27.7%A-
Rev
+0.1%C
0.43B+
D/E
0.46B+
20.7xB
P/E
6.2xA
0.82B+
PEG
0.79A-
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
META
WB
130% above
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
78% below
~30%/yr
Growth the price implies10-yr FCF · lower = less priced in
decline
-61%
1-yr DCF upside
+324%
-57%
5-yr DCF upside
+364%
-50%
10-yr DCF upside
+427%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
META
Why this score
- Durable high returns
WB
No notable signals flagged.
The companies
METAMeta Platforms, Inc.
Why now
Internet Content & Information · market cap $1.4T. Down 30% from 52-week high of $790.80 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +28% — in hypergrowth territory. PEG 0.82 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 57 sell-side analysts rate this a Strong Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $754.14 (implying +37% upside).
Moat
Net margin 30% sits well above the S&P median (~11%) — suggests structural pricing advantage or cost discipline competitors can't quickly close. ROE 26% — top-decile capital efficiency. Either pricing leverage, low capital intensity, or aggressive buybacks; the durability story depends on which. $1.4T market cap places it among the largest companies in the sector — distribution, R&D, and customer-acquisition costs amortize across a base peers can't replicate.
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.
WBWeibo Corporation
Why now
Internet Content & Information · market cap $1.8b. Down 45% from 52-week high of $12.96 — deep drawdown territory. PEG 0.79 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 16 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $8.60 (implying +20% upside).
Moat
Net margin 26% sits well above the S&P median (~11%) — suggests structural pricing advantage or cost discipline competitors can't quickly close. ROE 11% meets the long-run market sustainable threshold — solid but not differentiated; the durability comes from elsewhere. FCF converts 106% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash, a sign that working capital and capex are well-disciplined.
Risk
Down 45% 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 META and WB diverge
On the headline score the gap is 18.1 points in favor of META. They get there differently, though — each leads on a different pillar, so the better pick depends on which you weight.
- GrowthMETA 92.4 · WB 39.0META +53.4
- ValueMETA 61.8 · WB 80.9WB +19.1
- QualityMETA 86.4 · WB 72.0META +14.4
Pillars run 0–100 against sector peers, so a 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.