Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. ZM scored 66.7, FICO scored 86.3 — FICO leads.
Compare another set
ZM
Zoom Communications, Inc.
Software - Application · Quality-Growth
66.7
$97.74 · $28.5B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
19.6
FICO leads
FICO
Fair Isaac Corporation
Software - Application · Quality-Growth
86.3
$667.58 · $14.4B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestZM9.1x
Fastest growthFICO+15.9%
Highest qualityFICO91 / 100
Largest discount to fair valueFICO-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)
ZM
stronger →← stronger
FICO
80
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
91
52
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
87
71
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
81
FICO is stronger on 3 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
ZM
FICO
$1.9bC+
FCF
$961mC+
+5.0%C+
Rev
+15.9%B+
0.01A
D/E
Negative equity
9.1xA
P/E
19.3xB+
2.50C
PEG
0.67A-
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
ZM
FICO
0% below
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
1% below
~4%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~10%/yr
-1%
1-yr DCF upside
-13%
+0%
5-yr DCF upside
+1%
+3%
10-yr DCF upside
+25%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
ZM
Why this score
Buying back stock
FICO
Why this score
Buying back stock
Durable high returns
The companies
ZMZoom Communications, Inc.
Software - Application · $97.74 · beta 1.03
Why now
Software - Application · market cap $28.5b. 15% off the 52-week high of $114.74. 25 sell-side analysts publish a mean 1-yr target of $118.24 (implying +21% upside).
Moat
Net margin 65% is exceptional — pricing-power territory rare outside premium software, branded staples, and specialty pharma. ROE 29% — top-decile capital efficiency. Either pricing leverage, low capital intensity, or aggressive buybacks; the durability story depends on which. Software economics — recurring revenue, embedded customer workflows, and high gross margin all compound the moat once a base account is won. Switching costs are the lever.
Risk
Software — competitive moat is durable until it isn't; watch net revenue retention, gross margin trends, and any new market entrant with a fundamentally lower price point.
FICOFair Isaac Corporation
Software - Application · $667.58 · beta 1.34
Why now
Software - Application · market cap $14.4b. Down 64% from 52-week high of $1858.91 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +16%, comfortably above the S&P median. PEG 0.67 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 19 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $1,113 (implying +67% upside).
Moat
Net margin 34% is exceptional — pricing-power territory rare outside premium software, branded staples, and specialty pharma. FCF converts 118% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash. Software economics — recurring revenue, embedded customer workflows, and high gross margin all compound the moat once a base account is won. Switching costs are the lever.
Risk
Down 64% from the 52-week high — the market is pricing in something the screen can't see; verify the bear case before sizing up. Software — competitive moat is durable until it isn't; watch net revenue retention, gross margin trends, and any new market entrant with a fundamentally lower price point.
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 ZM and FICO diverge
On the headline score the gap is 19.6 points in favor of FICO. The widest single difference is Growth, where FICO leads by 34.5 points.
GrowthZM 52.2 · FICO 86.7FICO +34.5
QualityZM 79.6 · FICO 91.1FICO +11.5
ValueZM 71.5 · FICO 81.3FICO +9.8
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 FICO or ZM the better stock?
FICO scores higher: FICO 86.3, ZM 66.7 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 FICO and ZM differ most?
The widest gap is growth, where FICO leads by 35 points on the 0–100 pillar scale. FICO leads all three pillars, so the gap is broad rather than a single-measure difference.
How are FICO and ZM 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.