Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. OMC scored 41.1, WPP scored 24.0 — OMC leads.
Compare another set
Different reporting periods. OMC'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.
OMC
Omnicom Group Inc.
Advertising Agencies · Quality-Growth
41.1
$76.48 · $21.0B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
17.1
OMC 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
CheapestWPP0.3x
Fastest growthOMC+10.1%
Strongest balance sheetOMC1.08
Highest qualityOMC45 / 100
Largest discount to fair valueWPP-70%
Side by side · every name on one set of axes
Growth against the P/S 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)
OMC
stronger →← stronger
WPP
45
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
39
73
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
14
21
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
28
OMC is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
OMC
WPP
$2.4bB
FCF
$1.2bC+
+10.1%B
Rev
-8.1%D
1.08C+
D/E
2.58C
0.9xA-
P/S
0.3xA
15.97D
PEG
4.23D
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
WPP
61% below
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
70% below
~-14%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
decline
+134%
1-yr DCF upside
+279%
+154%
5-yr DCF upside
+236%
+187%
10-yr DCF upside
+184%
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
WPP
Why this score
Cut its dividend
Foreign reporter (GBP)
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.
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 OMC and WPP diverge
On the headline score the gap is 17.1 points in favor of OMC. They get there differently, though — each leads on a different pillar, so the better pick depends on which you weight.
GrowthOMC 73.3 · WPP 14.4OMC +58.9
ValueOMC 21.1 · WPP 28.2WPP +7.1
QualityOMC 45.0 · WPP 39.4OMC +5.6
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 OMC or WPP the better stock?
OMC scores higher: OMC 41.1, 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 OMC and WPP differ most?
The widest gap is growth, where OMC leads by 59 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 OMC 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.