Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. DV scored 70.4, WPP scored 24.0 — DV leads.
Compare another set
Different reporting periods. DV's fundamentals are as of June 2026, but WPP'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.
DV
DoubleVerify Holdings, Inc.
Advertising Agencies · Quality-Growth
70.4
$13.49 · $2.1B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
46.4
DV leads
WPP
WPP plc
Advertising Agencies · Quality-Growth
24
$25.38 · $5.5B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
Fastest growthDV+13.9%
Strongest balance sheetDV0.10
Highest qualityDV68 / 100
Largest discount to fair valueWPP-70%
Side by side · every name on one set of axes
The model, pillar by pillar (0–100 each)
DV
stronger →← stronger
WPP
68
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
39
85
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
14
61
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
28
DV is stronger on 3 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
DV
WPP
$161mC
FCF
$1.2bC+
+13.9%B+
Rev
-8.1%D
0.10A-
D/E
2.58C
38.5xC
P/E
—
0.54A-
PEG
4.23D
—
P/S
0.3xA
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
WPP
29% below
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
70% below
~1%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
decline
+25%
1-yr DCF upside
+279%
+42%
5-yr DCF upside
+236%
+71%
10-yr DCF upside
+184%
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
WPP
Why this score
Cut its dividend
Foreign reporter (GBP)
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.
WPPWPP plc
Advertising Agencies · $25.38 · beta 0.74
Why now
Advertising Agencies · market cap $5.5b. 9% off the 52-week high of $27.78. Revenue -8% — in contraction; any catalyst that reverses this triggers re-rating. 3 sell-side analysts publish a mean 1-yr target of $23.83 (implying -6% upside).
Moat
Turnaround / out-of-favor name — GAAP-unprofitable for now, so the durability case is forward-looking: it rests on a recovery (margin normalization, a cyclical upturn or restructuring) or an un-monetized asset (IP / network effects / first-mover position) rather than on current reported results.
Risk
D/E 2.58 is elevated — limits strategic flexibility and raises refinancing exposure if rates stay higher for longer. Revenue contracting -8% — the operational turn is not yet visible in the top line. Currently unprofitable (margin -1.3%) — path to GAAP profitability is the core thesis risk.
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 DV and WPP diverge
On the headline score the gap is 46.4 points in favor of DV. The widest single difference is Growth, where DV leads by 70.5 points.
GrowthDV 84.9 · WPP 14.4DV +70.5
ValueDV 60.7 · WPP 28.2DV +32.5
QualityDV 67.6 · WPP 39.4DV +28.2
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 WPP the better stock?
DV scores higher: DV 70.4, WPP 24.0 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 DV and WPP differ most?
The widest gap is growth, where DV leads by 71 points on the 0–100 pillar scale. DV leads all three pillars, so the gap is broad rather than a single-measure difference.
How are DV and WPP 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.