Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. OMC scored 41.1, DV scored 70.4 — DV leads.
Compare another set
OMC
Omnicom Group Inc.
Advertising Agencies · Quality-Growth
41.1
$76.48 · $21.0B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
29.3
DV 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
Fastest growthDV+13.9%
Strongest balance sheetDV0.10
Highest qualityDV68 / 100
Largest discount to fair valueOMC-61%
Side by side · every name on one set of axes
The model, pillar by pillar (0–100 each)
OMC
stronger →← stronger
DV
45
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
68
73
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
85
21
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
61
DV is stronger on 3 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
OMC
DV
$2.4bB
FCF
$161mC
+10.1%B
Rev
+13.9%B+
1.08C+
D/E
0.10A-
0.9xA-
P/S
—
15.97D
PEG
0.54A-
—
P/E
38.5xC
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
OMC
DV
61% below
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
29% below
~-14%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~1%/yr
+134%
1-yr DCF upside
+25%
+154%
5-yr DCF upside
+42%
+187%
10-yr DCF upside
+71%
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
OMC
Why this score
Raising its dividend
Diluting shareholders
DV
Why this score
Buying back stock
The companies
OMCOmnicom Group Inc.
Advertising Agencies · $76.48 · beta 0.70
Why now
Advertising Agencies · market cap $21.0b. 15% off the 52-week high of $89.57. Revenue growing +10%, comfortably above the S&P median. 12 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $102.00 (implying +33% upside).
Moat
Free cash flow runs well ahead of reported net income.
Risk
Dividend payout 816% of earnings on a 4.2% yield — distribution coverage is thin; one earnings stumble could force a dividend cut. Net margin 1.7% is thin — operating leverage cuts both ways; input-cost inflation or pricing pressure hits the bottom line first. ROE 6% 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.
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 OMC and DV diverge
On the headline score the gap is 29.3 points in favor of DV. The widest single difference is Value, where DV leads by 39.6 points.
ValueOMC 21.1 · DV 60.7DV +39.6
QualityOMC 45.0 · DV 67.6DV +22.6
GrowthOMC 73.3 · DV 84.9DV +11.6
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 OMC the better stock?
DV scores higher: DV 70.4, OMC 41.1 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 OMC differ most?
The widest gap is value, where DV leads by 40 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 OMC 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.