Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. MGNI scored 58.7, WPP scored 24.0 — MGNI leads.
Compare another set
Different reporting periods. MGNI'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.
MGNI
Magnite, Inc.
Advertising Agencies · Quality-Growth
58.7
$25.40 · $3.6B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
34.7
MGNI 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 growthMGNI+6.9%
Strongest balance sheetMGNI0.45
Highest qualityMGNI67 / 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)
MGNI
stronger →← stronger
WPP
67
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
39
73
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
14
42
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
28
MGNI is stronger on 3 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
MGNI
WPP
$200mC
FCF
$1.2bC+
+6.9%C+
Rev
-8.1%D
0.45B+
D/E
2.58C
23.1xB
P/E
—
0.09A
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
MGNI
WPP
41% above
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
70% below
~22%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
decline
-41%
1-yr DCF upside
+279%
-29%
5-yr DCF upside
+236%
-8%
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
MGNI
No notable signals flagged.
WPP
Why this score
Cut its dividend
Foreign reporter (GBP)
The companies
MGNIMagnite, Inc.
Advertising Agencies · $25.40 · beta 2.32
Why now
Advertising Agencies · market cap $3.6b. 5% off the 52-week high of $26.84. PEG 0.09 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 15 sell-side analysts rate this a Strong Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $29.67 (implying +17% upside).
Moat
Net margin 22% sits well above the S&P median (~11%) — suggests structural pricing advantage or cost discipline competitors can't quickly close. ROE 20% is above 15% — the equity base is compounding at a rate the market struggles to discount accurately. FCF converts 120% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash.
Risk
Beta 2.32 implies above-market volatility — position-size to the drawdowns this name will produce in a market correction, not to its bull-case return. Platform dependency — much of the addressable ad budget flows through Google, Meta, and Amazon; an algorithm change or pricing shift on the platform side resets the economics overnight.
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 MGNI and WPP diverge
On the headline score the gap is 34.7 points in favor of MGNI. The widest single difference is Growth, where MGNI leads by 58.8 points.
GrowthMGNI 73.2 · WPP 14.4MGNI +58.8
QualityMGNI 66.5 · WPP 39.4MGNI +27.1
ValueMGNI 41.5 · WPP 28.2MGNI +13.3
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 MGNI or WPP the better stock?
MGNI scores higher: MGNI 58.7, 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 MGNI and WPP differ most?
The widest gap is growth, where MGNI leads by 59 points on the 0–100 pillar scale. MGNI leads all three pillars, so the gap is broad rather than a single-measure difference.
How are MGNI 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.