COMPARE · Data as of August 21, 2026
OMC vs TTD
Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. OMC scored 41.8, TTD scored 80.0 — TTD leads.
Compare another set
Different reporting periods. TTD's fundamentals are as of June 2026, but OMC's are as of March 2026 — a 3-month gap. Growth, margin and valuation figures below therefore describe different windows and aren't strictly like-for-like.
OMC
Omnicom Group Inc.
41.8
$87.54 · $24.0B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
38.2
TTD leads
TTD
The Trade Desk, Inc.
80
$13.18 · $6.2B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
- Fastest growthOMC+25.9%
- Strongest balance sheetTTD0.17
- Highest qualityTTD86 / 100
- Largest discount to fair valueOMC-69%
Side by side · every name on one set of axes
The model, pillar by pillar (0–100 each)
OMC
stronger →← stronger
TTD
44
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
86
77
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
84
22
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
71
TTD is stronger on 3 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
OMC
TTD
$3.0bB
FCF
$863mC+
+25.9%A-
Rev
+11.6%B
1.08C+
D/E
0.17A-
1.2xA-
P/S
—
15.97D
PEG
1.15B+
—
P/E
15.7xB+
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
TTD
69% below
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
39% below
~-17%/yr
Growth the price implies10-yr FCF · lower = less priced in
~-13%/yr
+176%
1-yr DCF upside
+84%
+217%
5-yr DCF upside
+65%
+291%
10-yr DCF upside
+43%
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
TTD
No notable signals flagged.
The companies
OMCOmnicom Group Inc.
Why now
Advertising Agencies · market cap $24.0b. Trading near 52-week high of $88.55 — momentum setup, limited technical margin of safety. Revenue growing +26% — in hypergrowth territory. 12 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $102.08 (implying +17% upside).
Moat
Free cash flow runs well ahead of reported net income — non-cash charges (depreciation, intangible amortization) are holding down GAAP earnings while cash generation stays strong.
Risk
Trading within 1% of the 52-week high — limited technical margin of safety; a momentum reversal would test conviction. Net margin 0.3% is thin — operating leverage cuts both ways; input-cost inflation or pricing pressure hits the bottom line first. ROE 1% 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.
TTDThe Trade Desk, Inc.
Why now
Advertising Agencies · market cap $6.2b. Down 77% from 52-week high of $56.39 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +12%, comfortably above the S&P median. 30 sell-side analysts rate this a Hold with a mean 1-yr target of $13.39 (implying +2% upside).
Moat
Net margin 14% beats the market median by a meaningful margin — the company is keeping more of every revenue dollar than the average S&P constituent. ROE 16% sits above Buffett's preferred 15% threshold — the equity base is compounding at a rate the market struggles to discount accurately. Free cash flow runs well ahead of reported net income — non-cash charges (depreciation, intangible amortization) are holding down GAAP earnings while cash generation stays strong.
Risk
Down 77% 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.
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 TTD diverge
On the headline score the gap is 38.2 points in favor of TTD. The widest single difference is Value, where TTD leads by 49.8 points.
- ValueOMC 21.6 · TTD 71.4TTD +49.8
- QualityOMC 43.7 · TTD 85.5TTD +41.8
- GrowthOMC 77.4 · TTD 83.8TTD +6.4
Pillars run 0–100 against sector peers, so a 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.