Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. LFTO scored 72.0, APP scored 88.3 — APP leads.
Compare another set
LFTO
Liftoff Mobile, Inc.
Advertising Agencies · Quality-Growth
72
$15.41 · $2.6B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
16.3
APP leads
APP
AppLovin Corporation
Advertising Agencies · Quality-Growth
88.3
$277.04 · $93.1B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestAPP21.3x
Fastest growthAPP+70.0%
Highest qualityAPP90 / 100
Largest discount to fair valueLFTO-39%
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)
LFTO
stronger →← stronger
APP
87
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
90
95
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
96
51
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
79
APP is stronger on 3 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
LFTO
APP
$184mC
FCF
$4.5bB
+32.1%A
Rev
+70.0%A
Negative equity
D/E
1.11C+
61.6xC
P/E
21.3xB
0.67A-
PEG
0.61A-
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
LFTO
APP
39% below
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
45% above
~3%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~26%/yr
+26%
1-yr DCF upside
-46%
+64%
5-yr DCF upside
-31%
+142%
10-yr DCF upside
-3%
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
LFTO
Why this score
Short track record
APP
Why this score
Durable high returns
The companies
LFTOLiftoff Mobile, Inc.
Advertising Agencies · $15.41
Why now
Advertising Agencies · market cap $2.6b. Down 49% from 52-week high of $30.10 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +32% — in hypergrowth territory. PEG 0.67 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 15 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $33.40 (implying +117% upside).
Moat
Free cash flow runs well ahead of reported net income, mostly because of depreciation and amortization ($92m) — non-cash charges that hold down reported earnings while cash generation stays strong.
Risk
Trailing P/E 61.6x prices in sustained high growth — any quarter that disappoints triggers sharp re-rating. Down 49% 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.
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.
Verdict — model-derived comparison
APP leads LFTO by 12.5 points (84.5 to 72.0), its sharpest advantage coming in FCF (grade B). A contrarian could still prefer LFTO, which trades about 37% below our DCF fair value — a margin of safety the score doesn't reward. Note they play different roles — APP screens as value, LFTO screens as growth — so the model rewards different traits for each.
Our AI analyst is busy right now, so this verdict is drawn directly from the pillars, grades and DCF above.
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 LFTO and APP diverge
On the headline score the gap is 16.3 points in favor of APP. The widest single difference is Value, where APP leads by 27.8 points.
ValueLFTO 51.4 · APP 79.2APP +27.8
QualityLFTO 86.7 · APP 90.1APP +3.4
GrowthLFTO 94.9 · APP 96.4level
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 LFTO the better stock?
APP scores higher: APP 88.3, LFTO 72.0 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 APP and LFTO differ most?
The widest gap is value, where APP leads by 28 points on the 0–100 pillar scale. APP also leads quality, while growth is effectively level between them.
How are APP and LFTO 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.