COMPARE · Data as of August 13, 2026
DV vs STGW
Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. DV scored 67.3, STGW scored 52.9 — DV leads.
Compare another set
DV
DoubleVerify Holdings, Inc.
67.3
$13.30 · $2.0B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
14.4
DV leads
STGW
Stagwell Inc.
52.9
$9.31 · $2.3B
fundamentals as of
The model, pillar by pillar (0–100 each)
DV
stronger →← stronger
STGW
68
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
50
63
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
56
72
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
53
DV is stronger on 3 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
DV
STGW
$161mC
FCF
$253mC
+7.6%B
Rev
+6.4%C+
0.10A-
D/E
2.41C
38.0xC
P/E
155.2xD
0.54A-
PEG
0.39A
Winner per row is the stronger grade in our model; a tie or a missing value shows no highlight.
Valuation · DCF cross-check
DV
STGW
33% below
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
41% below
~-1%/yr
Growth the price implies10-yr FCF · lower = less priced in
~-5%/yr
+30%
1-yr DCF upside
+51%
+49%
5-yr DCF upside
+68%
+80%
10-yr DCF upside
+97%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
DV
Why this score
- Buying back stock
STGW
Why this score
- Buying back stock
The companies
DVDoubleVerify Holdings, Inc.
Why now
Advertising Agencies · market cap $2.0b. 19% off the 52-week high of $16.44. PEG 0.54 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 10 sell-side analysts rate this a Hold with a mean 1-yr target of $13.52 (implying +2% 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
Trailing P/E 38x 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. 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.
STGWStagwell Inc.
Why now
Advertising Agencies · market cap $2.3b. Trading near 52-week high of $9.55 — momentum setup, limited technical margin of safety. PEG 0.39 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 7 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $9.86 (implying +6% 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
D/E 2.41 is elevated — limits strategic flexibility and raises refinancing exposure if rates stay higher for longer. Trailing P/E 155.2x prices in sustained high growth — any quarter that disappoints triggers sharp re-rating. Trading within 3% of the 52-week high — limited technical margin of safety; a momentum reversal would test conviction.
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 DV and STGW diverge
On the headline score the gap is 14.4 points in favour of DV. The widest single difference is Value, where DV leads by 19.2 points.
- ValueDV 71.8 · STGW 52.6DV +19.2
- QualityDV 67.8 · STGW 50.4DV +17.4
- GrowthDV 62.6 · STGW 55.8DV +6.8
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.