Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. APP scored 88.3, STGW scored 40.8 — APP leads.
Compare another set
APP
AppLovin Corporation
Advertising Agencies · Quality-Growth
88.3
$277.04 · $93.1B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
47.5
APP leads
STGW
Stagwell Inc.
Advertising Agencies · Quality-Growth
40.8
$8.65 · $2.1B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestAPP21.3x
Fastest growthAPP+70.0%
Strongest balance sheetAPP1.11
Highest qualityAPP90 / 100
Largest discount to fair valueSTGW-44%
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)
APP
stronger →← stronger
STGW
90
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
51
96
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
70
79
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
19
APP is stronger on 3 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
APP
STGW
$4.5bB
FCF
$253mC
+70.0%A
Rev
+6.4%C+
1.11C+
D/E
2.41C
21.3xB
P/E
173.0xD
0.61A-
PEG
0.38A
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
APP
STGW
45% above
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
44% below
~26%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~-5%/yr
-46%
1-yr DCF upside
+57%
-31%
5-yr DCF upside
+79%
-3%
10-yr DCF upside
+114%
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
APP
Why this score
Durable high returns
STGW
Why this score
Buying back stock
The companies
APPAppLovin Corporation
Advertising Agencies · $277.04 · beta 2.56
Why now
Advertising Agencies · market cap $93.1b. Down 62% from 52-week high of $738.01 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +70% — in hypergrowth territory. PEG 0.61 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 31 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $487.66 (implying +76% upside).
Moat
Net margin 65% is exceptional — pricing-power territory rare outside premium software, branded staples, and specialty pharma. FCF converts 102% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash. $93.1b market cap gives the company enough scale to absorb fixed costs that subscale competitors can't, without yet being so large that growth has to come from acquisition.
Risk
Down 62% from the 52-week high — the market is pricing in something the screen can't see; verify the bear case before sizing up. Beta 2.56 implies above-market volatility — position-size to the drawdowns this name will produce in a market correction, not to its bull-case return. P/S 13.6x embeds aggressive forward growth — disappointing top-line guidance would compress the multiple hard.
STGWStagwell Inc.
Advertising Agencies · $8.65 · beta 1.30
Why now
Advertising Agencies · market cap $2.1b. 9% off the 52-week high of $9.55. PEG 0.38 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 7 sell-side analysts rate this a Strong Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $10.71 (implying +24% upside).
Moat
Free cash flow runs well ahead of reported net income.
Risk
D/E 2.41 is elevated — limits strategic flexibility and raises refinancing exposure if rates stay higher for longer. Trailing P/E 173.0x prices in sustained high growth — any quarter that disappoints triggers sharp re-rating. Net margin 0.5% 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 APP and STGW diverge
On the headline score the gap is 47.5 points in favor of APP. The widest single difference is Value, where APP leads by 60.1 points.
ValueAPP 79.2 · STGW 19.1APP +60.1
QualityAPP 90.1 · STGW 50.5APP +39.6
GrowthAPP 96.4 · STGW 70.3APP +26.1
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 APP or STGW the better stock?
APP scores higher: APP 88.3, STGW 40.8 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 APP and STGW differ most?
The widest gap is value, where APP leads by 60 points on the 0–100 pillar scale. APP leads all three pillars, so the gap is broad rather than a single-measure difference.
How are APP and STGW 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.