IMMR vs ACTG vs PXLW

For growth investors, Immersion Corporation (IMMR) is the stronger pick with 35.

4% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -98. 4% for Pixelworks, Inc. (PXLW). Immersion Corporation (IMMR) offers the better valuation at 1. 6x trailing P/E (15. 5x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Immersion Corporation (IMMR) a "Buy" — based on 15 analyst ratings — the highest consensus in this comparison. The "better buy" depends entirely on your goals: growth investors should weight revenue trajectory, value investors should weight P/E and PEG, and income investors should weight dividend yield and streak.

On trailing P/E, Immersion Corporation (IMMR) is the cheapest at 1.

6x versus Acacia Research Corporation at 21. 4x.

Over the past 5 years, Immersion Corporation (IMMR) delivered a total return of -6.

1%, compared to -86. 0% for Pixelworks, Inc. (PXLW). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: IMMR returned +13. 3% versus PXLW's -73. 6%. Past returns do not guarantee future results, and the stock with the higher historical return may already have its best growth priced in.

By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Acacia Research Corporation (ACTG) is the lower-risk stock at 0.

76β versus Pixelworks, Inc. 's 1. 83β — meaning PXLW is approximately 142% more volatile than ACTG relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Pixelworks, Inc. (PXLW) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 4% versus 57% for Immersion Corporation — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.

By revenue growth (latest reported year), Immersion Corporation (IMMR) is pulling ahead at 35.

4% versus -98. 4% for Pixelworks, Inc. (PXLW). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Immersion Corporation grew EPS 295. 2% year-over-year, compared to 74. 5% for Pixelworks, Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, IMMR leads at 227. 7% annualised revenue growth. Higher growth typically commands a higher valuation multiple — check whether the premium P/E or P/S is justified by the growth rate using the PEG ratio.

Acacia Research Corporation (ACTG) is the more profitable company, earning 7.

6% net margin versus -1190. 3% for Pixelworks, Inc. — meaning it keeps 7. 6% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: IMMR leads at 10. 7% versus -1667. 5% for PXLW. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — PXLW leads at 85. 0%, reflecting greater pricing power or product mix advantage. Stronger margins indicate durable pricing power, lower cost of revenue, or higher mix of software/services. They are one of the clearest signs of business quality.

Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for PXLW: 167.

4% to $15. 00.

In this comparison, IMMR (6.

0% yield) pays a dividend. ACTG, PXLW do not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.

For long-horizon retirement investors, Acacia Research Corporation (ACTG) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0.

76)). Pixelworks, Inc. (PXLW) carries a higher beta of 1. 83 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (ACTG: +2. 5%, PXLW: -73. 6%), confirming both are viable long-term holds — but the lower-volatility option typically results in less emotional selling during corrections. Retirement portfolios generally favour predictability over maximum returns. Consult a financial advisor before making allocation decisions.

These companies operate in different sectors (IMMR (Technology) and ACTG (Industrials) and PXLW (Technology)), which means they face different economic cycles, regulatory environments, and macro sensitivities — making direct comparison nuanced.

In terms of investment character: IMMR is a small-cap high-growth stock; ACTG is a small-cap high-growth stock; PXLW is a small-cap quality compounder stock. IMMR pays a dividend while ACTG, PXLW do not, making them suitable for different income and tax situations. These fundamental differences mean investors should not choose between them on a single metric — the "better stock" depends entirely on which of these characteristics aligns with your investment strategy.