Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. DV scored 70.4, TTD scored 62.5 — DV leads.
Compare another set
DV
DoubleVerify Holdings, Inc.
Advertising Agencies · Quality-Growth
70.4
$13.49 · $2.1B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
7.9
DV leads
TTD
The Trade Desk, Inc.
Advertising Agencies · Quality-Growth
62.5
$12.08 · $5.7B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestTTD14.6x
Fastest growthDV+13.9%
Strongest balance sheetDV0.10
Highest qualityTTD85 / 100
Largest discount to fair valueTTD-63%
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)
DV
stronger →← stronger
TTD
68
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
85
85
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
54
61
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
53
DV is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
DV
TTD
$161mC
FCF
$863mC+
+13.9%B+
Rev
+11.6%B
0.10A-
D/E
0.17A-
38.5xC
P/E
14.6xB+
0.54A-
PEG
—
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
DV
TTD
29% below
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
63% below
~1%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~-15%/yr
+25%
1-yr DCF upside
+142%
+42%
5-yr DCF upside
+168%
+71%
10-yr DCF upside
+210%
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
DV
Why this score
Buying back stock
TTD
No notable signals flagged.
The companies
DVDoubleVerify Holdings, Inc.
Advertising Agencies · $13.49 · beta 0.99
Why now
Advertising Agencies · market cap $2.1b. Trading near 52-week high of $13.65 — momentum setup, limited technical margin of safety. Revenue growing +14%, comfortably above the S&P median. PEG 0.54 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 10 sell-side analysts publish a mean 1-yr target of $13.48 (implying -0% upside).
Moat
Free cash flow runs well ahead of reported net income, mostly because of stock-based pay ($103m) — a real cost to shareholders, paid in shares rather than cash.
Risk
Trading within 1% of the 52-week high — limited technical margin of safety; a momentum reversal would test conviction. Trailing P/E 39x sits well above the S&P median (~20x) — multiple compression is a real risk if revenue growth decelerates. ROE 5% is below the long-run sustainable threshold of ~10% — capital efficiency would need to improve for the equity base to compound at the market rate.
TTDThe Trade Desk, Inc.
Advertising Agencies · $12.08 · beta 0.99
Why now
Advertising Agencies · market cap $5.7b. Down 78% from 52-week high of $55.11 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +12%, comfortably above the S&P median. 30 sell-side analysts rate this a Hold with a mean 1-yr target of $13.57 (implying +12% upside).
Moat
Net margin 14% beats the market median by a meaningful margin — the company is keeping more of every revenue dollar than the average S&P constituent. ROE 16% is above 15% — the equity base is compounding at a rate the market struggles to discount accurately. Free cash flow runs well ahead of reported net income, mostly because of stock-based pay ($452m) — a real cost to shareholders, paid in shares rather than cash.
Risk
Down 78% from the 52-week high — the market is pricing in something the screen can't see; verify the bear case before sizing up. Ad-spending cyclicality — marketing budgets are among the first cut in any recession and the last restored; the business levers higher in the bull but lower in the bear than the headline economy.
Verdict — model-derived comparison
The model favors TTD (85.3) over DV (76.3) primarily due to TTD's superior Quality pillar score of 87, significantly higher than DV's 66. However, a contrarian might prefer DV for its stronger PEG grade of A- (0.72), indicating better value for growth than TTD's B+ (0.86). No structural caveats are applicable here.
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 DV and TTD diverge
On the headline score the gap is 7.9 points in favor of DV. They get there differently, though — each leads on a different pillar, so the better pick depends on which you weight.
GrowthDV 84.9 · TTD 54.0DV +30.9
QualityDV 67.6 · TTD 85.5TTD +17.9
ValueDV 60.7 · TTD 53.0DV +7.7
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 DV or TTD the better stock?
DV scores higher: DV 70.4, TTD 62.5 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 DV and TTD differ most?
The widest gap is growth, where DV leads by 31 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 DV and TTD 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.