Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. LFTO scored 72.0, DV scored 70.4 — LFTO leads.
Compare another set
LFTO
Liftoff Mobile, Inc.
Advertising Agencies · Quality-Growth
72
$15.41 · $2.6B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
1.6
LFTO leads
DV
DoubleVerify Holdings, Inc.
Advertising Agencies · Quality-Growth
70.4
$13.49 · $2.1B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestDV38.5x
Fastest growthLFTO+32.1%
Highest qualityLFTO87 / 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
DV
87
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
68
95
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
85
51
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
61
LFTO is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
LFTO
DV
$184mC
FCF
$161mC
+32.1%A
Rev
+13.9%B+
Negative equity
D/E
0.10A-
61.6xC
P/E
38.5xC
0.67A-
PEG
0.54A-
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
DV
39% below
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
29% below
~3%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~1%/yr
+26%
1-yr DCF upside
+25%
+64%
5-yr DCF upside
+42%
+142%
10-yr DCF upside
+71%
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
DV
Why this score
Buying back stock
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.
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.
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 LFTO and DV diverge
On the headline score the gap is 1.6 points in favor of LFTO. They get there differently, though — each leads on a different pillar, so the better pick depends on which you weight.
QualityLFTO 86.7 · DV 67.6LFTO +19.1
GrowthLFTO 94.9 · DV 84.9LFTO +10.0
ValueLFTO 51.4 · DV 60.7DV +9.3
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 LFTO or DV the better stock?
LFTO scores higher: LFTO 72.0, DV 70.4 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 LFTO and DV differ most?
The widest gap is quality, where LFTO leads by 19 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 LFTO and DV 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.