Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. Z scored 38.0, META scored 71.4 — META leads.
Compare another set
Z
Zillow Group, Inc.
Internet Content & Information · Quality-Growth
38
$29.01 · $6.5B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
33.4
META leads
META
Meta Platforms, Inc.
Internet Content & Information · Quality-Growth
71.4
$718.67 · $1.8T
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestMETA27.1x
Fastest growthMETA+27.7%
Strongest balance sheetZ0.13
Highest qualityMETA89 / 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)
Z
stronger →← stronger
META
34
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
89
85
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
82
19
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
50
META is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
Z
META
$258mC
FCF
$41.0bA
+17.7%B+
Rev
+27.7%A-
0.13A-
D/E
0.43B+
126.1xD
P/E
27.1xC+
0.93B+
PEG
0.95B+
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
Z
META
105% above
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
152% above
~32%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~37%/yr
-59%
1-yr DCF upside
-67%
-51%
5-yr DCF upside
-60%
-39%
10-yr DCF upside
-48%
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
Z
Why this score
Diluting shareholders
META
Why this score
Durable high returns
The companies
ZZillow Group, Inc.
Internet Content & Information · $29.01 · beta 2.02
Why now
Internet Content & Information · market cap $6.5b. Down 63% from 52-week high of $79.40 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +18%, comfortably above the S&P median. PEG 0.93 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 6 sell-side analysts publish a mean 1-yr target of $46.00 (implying +59% upside).
Moat
Free cash flow runs well ahead of reported net income.
Risk
Trailing P/E 126.1x prices in sustained high growth — any quarter that disappoints triggers sharp re-rating. Down 63% from the 52-week high — the market is pricing in something the screen can't see; verify the bear case before sizing up. Beta 2.02 implies above-market volatility — position-size to the drawdowns this name will produce in a market correction, not to its bull-case return.
METAMeta Platforms, Inc.
Internet Content & Information · $718.67 · beta 1.19
Why now
Internet Content & Information · market cap $1.8T. 8% off the 52-week high of $779.82. Revenue growing +28% — in hypergrowth territory. PEG 0.95 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 58 sell-side analysts rate this a Strong Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $799.34 (implying +11% 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. $1.8T 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
Value re-rating depends on a catalyst. Without one — analyst day, divestiture, margin recovery, capital return — the stock can stay cheap on these multiples for years.
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 Z and META diverge
On the headline score the gap is 33.4 points in favor of META. The widest single difference is Quality, where META leads by 54.3 points.
QualityZ 34.4 · META 88.7META +54.3
ValueZ 18.8 · META 50.2META +31.4
GrowthZ 84.7 · META 81.8level
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 META or Z the better stock?
META scores higher: META 71.4, Z 38.0 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 META and Z differ most?
The widest gap is quality, where META leads by 54 points on the 0–100 pillar scale. META also leads value, while growth is effectively level between them.
How are META and Z 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.