Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. WPP scored 24.0, LFTO scored 72.0 — LFTO leads.
Compare another set
Different reporting periods. LFTO'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.
WPP
WPP plc
Advertising Agencies · Quality-Growth
24
$25.38 · $5.5B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
48.0
LFTO leads
LFTO
Liftoff Mobile, Inc.
Advertising Agencies · Quality-Growth
72
$15.41 · $2.6B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
Fastest growthLFTO+32.1%
Highest qualityLFTO87 / 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)
WPP
stronger →← stronger
LFTO
39
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
87
14
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
95
28
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
51
LFTO is stronger on 3 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
WPP
LFTO
$1.2bC+
FCF
$184mC
-8.1%D
Rev
+32.1%A
2.58C
D/E
Negative equity
0.3xA
P/S
—
4.23D
PEG
0.67A-
—
P/E
61.6xC
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
WPP
LFTO
70% below
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
39% below
decline
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~3%/yr
+279%
1-yr DCF upside
+26%
+236%
5-yr DCF upside
+64%
+184%
10-yr DCF upside
+142%
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
WPP
Why this score
Cut its dividend
Foreign reporter (GBP)
LFTO
Why this score
Short track record
The companies
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.
LFTOLiftoff Mobile, Inc.
Advertising Agencies · $15.41
Why now
Advertising Agencies · market cap $2.6b. Down 49% from 52-week high of $30.10 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +32% — in hypergrowth territory. PEG 0.67 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 15 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $33.40 (implying +117% upside).
Moat
Free cash flow runs well ahead of reported net income, mostly because of depreciation and amortization ($92m) — non-cash charges that hold down reported earnings while cash generation stays strong.
Risk
Trailing P/E 61.6x prices in sustained high growth — any quarter that disappoints triggers sharp re-rating. Down 49% 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 WPP and LFTO diverge
On the headline score the gap is 48.0 points in favor of LFTO. The widest single difference is Growth, where LFTO leads by 80.5 points.
GrowthWPP 14.4 · LFTO 94.9LFTO +80.5
QualityWPP 39.4 · LFTO 86.7LFTO +47.3
ValueWPP 28.2 · LFTO 51.4LFTO +23.2
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 LFTO or WPP the better stock?
LFTO scores higher: LFTO 72.0, 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 LFTO and WPP differ most?
The widest gap is growth, where LFTO leads by 81 points on the 0–100 pillar scale. LFTO leads all three pillars, so the gap is broad rather than a single-measure difference.
How are LFTO 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.