TEAD vs IAS

For growth investors, Teads Holding Co.

(TEAD) is the stronger pick with 46. 1% revenue growth year-over-year, versus 11. 7% for Integral Ad Science Holding Corp. (IAS). Integral Ad Science Holding Corp. (IAS) offers the better valuation at 45. 0x trailing P/E (27. 5x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Integral Ad Science Holding Corp. (IAS) a "Buy" — based on 12 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.

Over the past 5 years, Integral Ad Science Holding Corp.

(IAS) delivered a total return of -49. 8%, compared to -61. 8% for Teads Holding Co. (TEAD). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: IAS returned -49. 8% versus TEAD's -61. 8%. 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), Integral Ad Science Holding Corp.

(IAS) is the lower-risk stock at 0. 83β versus Teads Holding Co. 's 3. 15β — meaning TEAD is approximately 278% more volatile than IAS relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Integral Ad Science Holding Corp. (IAS) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 6% versus 7% for Teads Holding Co. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.

By revenue growth (latest reported year), Teads Holding Co.

(TEAD) is pulling ahead at 46. 1% versus 11. 7% for Integral Ad Science Holding Corp. (IAS). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Integral Ad Science Holding Corp. grew EPS 413. 4% year-over-year, compared to -55. 9% for Teads Holding Co.. Over a 3-year CAGR, IAS leads at 17. 9% 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.

Integral Ad Science Holding Corp.

(IAS) is the more profitable company, earning 7. 1% net margin versus -39. 8% for Teads Holding Co. — meaning it keeps 7. 1% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: IAS leads at 11. 4% versus -1. 2% for TEAD. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — IAS leads at 78. 5%, 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.

None of the stocks in this comparison currently pay a material dividend.

All are effectively zero-yield and should be held for capital appreciation rather than income.

For long-horizon retirement investors, Integral Ad Science Holding Corp.

(IAS) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0. 83)). Teads Holding Co. (TEAD) carries a higher beta of 3. 15 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (IAS: -49. 8%, TEAD: -61. 8%), 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 (TEAD (Technology) and IAS (Communication Services)), which means they face different economic cycles, regulatory environments, and macro sensitivities — making direct comparison nuanced.

In terms of investment character: TEAD is a small-cap high-growth stock; IAS is a small-cap quality compounder stock. 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.