REIT - Specialty
Compare Stocks
4 / 10Stock Comparison
AFCG vs TPVG vs HRZN vs SUNS
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Asset Management
Asset Management
REIT - Residential
AFCG vs TPVG vs HRZN vs SUNS — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | REIT - Specialty | Asset Management | Asset Management | REIT - Residential |
| Market Cap | $73M | $243M | $199M | $103M |
| Revenue (TTM) | $6M | $97M | $40M | $26M |
| Net Income (TTM) | $-20M | $-12M | $28M | $12M |
| Gross Margin | -76.6% | 83.5% | 18.0% | 79.9% |
| Operating Margin | -124.7% | 77.9% | -4.0% | 53.4% |
| Forward P/E | — | 6.5x | 6.1x | 6.6x |
| Total Debt | $76M | $469M | $473M | $122M |
| Cash & Equiv. | $39M | $20M | $106M | $6M |
AFCG vs TPVG vs HRZN vs SUNS — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | Jul 24 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Advanced Flower Cap… (AFCG) | 100 | 34.4 | -65.6% |
| TriplePoint Venture… (TPVG) | 100 | 67.8 | -32.2% |
| Horizon Technology … (HRZN) | 100 | 38.7 | -61.3% |
| Sunrise Realty Trus… (SUNS) | 100 | 64.3 | -35.8% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: AFCG vs TPVG vs HRZN vs SUNS
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
AFCG is the clearest fit if your priority is income & stability.
- Dividend streak 0 yrs, beta 1.86, yield 28.1%
- 28.1% yield, vs SUNS's 15.3%
TPVG has the current edge in this matchup, primarily because of its strength in long-term compounding and bank quality.
- 93.3% 10Y total return vs SUNS's -10.5%
- NIM 7.4% vs HRZN's 7.1%
- 50.6% margin vs AFCG's -333.9%
- +19.3% vs AFCG's -35.5%
HRZN is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if sleep-well-at-night and valuation efficiency is your priority.
- Lower volatility, beta 0.70, current ratio 1.24x
- PEG 0.26 vs TPVG's 6.41
- Beta 0.70, yield 27.8%, current ratio 1.24x
- Lower P/E (6.1x vs 6.6x)
SUNS is the clearest fit if your priority is growth exposure.
- Rev growth 148.1%, EPS growth -5.0%
- 148.1% FFO/revenue growth vs AFCG's -39.6%
- 4.6% ROA vs AFCG's -6.4%, ROIC 6.0% vs -4.1%
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 148.1% FFO/revenue growth vs AFCG's -39.6% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (6.1x vs 6.6x) | |
| Quality / Margins | 50.6% margin vs AFCG's -333.9% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.70 vs AFCG's 1.86 | |
| Dividends | 28.1% yield, vs SUNS's 15.3% | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +19.3% vs AFCG's -35.5% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 4.6% ROA vs AFCG's -6.4%, ROIC 6.0% vs -4.1% |
AFCG vs TPVG vs HRZN vs SUNS — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 4 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
TPVG leads in 2 of 6 categories
AFCG leads 0 • HRZN leads 0 • SUNS leads 0 • 4 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
TPVG leads this category, winning 3 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
TPVG is the larger business by revenue, generating $97M annually — 16.3x AFCG's $6M. TPVG is the more profitable business, keeping 50.6% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to AFCG's -3.3%. On growth, SUNS holds the edge at +108.1% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $6M | $97M | $40M | $26M |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | -$16M | -$22M | $19M | $16M |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | -$20M | -$12M | $28M | $12M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | -$24M | $35M | $67M | -$3M |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | -76.6% | +83.5% | +18.0% | +79.9% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | -124.7% | +77.9% | -4.0% | +53.4% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | -3.3% | +50.6% | -6.6% | +46.0% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | -3.9% | -58.7% | +141.5% | -13.0% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +64.7% | — | — | +108.1% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +16.7% | -2.3% | -29.6% | -55.6% |
Valuation Metrics
Evenly matched — AFCG and HRZN each lead in 3 of 7 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 4.3x trailing earnings, HRZN trades at a 47% valuation discount to SUNS's 8.1x P/E. Adjusting for growth (PEG ratio), HRZN offers better value at 0.18x vs TPVG's 4.84x — a lower PEG means you pay less per unit of expected earnings growth.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $73M | $243M | $199M | $103M |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $110M | $691M | $567M | $219M |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | -3.25x | 4.91x | 4.30x | 8.12x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | — | 6.50x | 6.10x | 6.58x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | 4.84x | 0.18x | — |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | — | 9.13x | — | 12.93x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 2.32x | 2.50x | 4.97x | 3.92x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 0.39x | 0.68x | 0.60x | 0.54x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | 6.47x | — | 3.51x | — |
Profitability & Efficiency
Evenly matched — AFCG and TPVG each lead in 3 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
HRZN delivers a 9.0% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $9 in annual profit, vs $-11 for AFCG. AFCG carries lower financial leverage with a 0.43x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to HRZN's 1.49x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), TPVG scores 5/9 vs SUNS's 3/9, reflecting solid financial health.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | -11.1% | -3.4% | +9.0% | +6.6% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | -6.4% | -1.5% | +3.6% | +4.6% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | -4.1% | +7.2% | -0.2% | +6.0% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | -5.6% | +9.4% | -0.2% | +5.4% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 3 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.43x | 1.33x | 1.49x | 0.67x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $38M | $449M | $368M | $116M |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $39M | $20M | $106M | $6M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $76M | $469M | $473M | $122M |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | -2.15x | -1.02x | 0.60x | 3.53x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
TPVG leads this category, winning 4 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in SUNS five years ago would be worth $8,945 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $5,539 for AFCG. Over the past 12 months, TPVG leads with a +19.3% total return vs AFCG's -35.5%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors TPVG at -1.2% vs HRZN's -10.3% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | +10.2% | -6.3% | -26.7% | -13.4% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | -35.5% | +19.3% | -23.2% | -12.3% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -20.1% | -3.4% | -27.7% | -10.5% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -44.6% | -13.5% | -32.8% | -10.5% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -42.4% | +93.3% | +52.9% | -10.5% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | -7.2% | -1.2% | -10.3% | -3.6% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — TPVG and HRZN each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
HRZN is the less volatile stock with a 0.70 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than AFCG's 1.86 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. TPVG currently trades 79.5% from its 52-week high vs AFCG's 52.6% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 1.86x | 0.83x | 0.70x | 0.86x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $5.87 | $7.53 | $8.46 | $11.78 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $2.06 | $4.48 | $3.80 | $7.39 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +52.6% | +79.5% | +53.3% | +65.4% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 48.2 | 58.3 | 58.5 | 47.0 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 235K | 504K | 1.2M | 105K |
Analyst Outlook
Evenly matched — AFCG and SUNS each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: TPVG as "Hold", HRZN as "Hold", SUNS as "Hold". Consensus price targets imply 97.8% upside for SUNS (target: $15) vs 44.1% for HRZN (target: $7). For income investors, AFCG offers the higher dividend yield at 28.10% vs SUNS's 15.25%.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | — | Hold | Hold | Hold |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | — | $8.95 | $6.50 | $15.25 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | — | 12 | 22 | 8 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | +28.1% | +17.1% | +27.8% | +15.3% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | $0.87 | $1.02 | $1.25 | $1.18 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
TPVG leads in 2 of 6 categories — strongest in Income & Cash Flow and Total Returns. 4 categories are tied.
AFCG vs TPVG vs HRZN vs SUNS: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is AFCG or TPVG or HRZN or SUNS a better buy right now?
For growth investors, Sunrise Realty Trust, Inc.
(SUNS) is the stronger pick with 148. 1% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -39. 6% for Advanced Flower Capital Inc. (AFCG). Horizon Technology Finance Corporation (HRZN) offers the better valuation at 4. 3x trailing P/E (6. 1x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate TriplePoint Venture Growth BDC Corp. (TPVG) a "Hold" — 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.
02Which has the better valuation — AFCG or TPVG or HRZN or SUNS?
On trailing P/E, Horizon Technology Finance Corporation (HRZN) is the cheapest at 4.
3x versus Sunrise Realty Trust, Inc. at 8. 1x. On forward P/E, Horizon Technology Finance Corporation is actually cheaper at 6. 1x. The PEG ratio (P/E divided by earnings growth rate) is the most growth-adjusted single valuation metric: Horizon Technology Finance Corporation wins at 0. 26x versus TriplePoint Venture Growth BDC Corp. 's 6. 41x — a PEG below 1. 0 traditionally signals the market is underpricing earnings growth.
03Which is the better long-term investment — AFCG or TPVG or HRZN or SUNS?
Over the past 5 years, Sunrise Realty Trust, Inc.
(SUNS) delivered a total return of -10. 5%, compared to -44. 6% for Advanced Flower Capital Inc. (AFCG). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: TPVG returned +93. 3% versus AFCG's -42. 4%. Past returns do not guarantee future results, and the stock with the higher historical return may already have its best growth priced in.
04Which is safer — AFCG or TPVG or HRZN or SUNS?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Horizon Technology Finance Corporation (HRZN) is the lower-risk stock at 0.
70β versus Advanced Flower Capital Inc. 's 1. 86β — meaning AFCG is approximately 165% more volatile than HRZN relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Advanced Flower Capital Inc. (AFCG) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 43% versus 149% for Horizon Technology Finance Corporation — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — AFCG or TPVG or HRZN or SUNS?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), Sunrise Realty Trust, Inc.
(SUNS) is pulling ahead at 148. 1% versus -39. 6% for Advanced Flower Capital Inc. (AFCG). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Horizon Technology Finance Corporation grew EPS 756. 3% year-over-year, compared to -218. 8% for Advanced Flower Capital Inc.. 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.
06Which has better profit margins — AFCG or TPVG or HRZN or SUNS?
TriplePoint Venture Growth BDC Corp.
(TPVG) is the more profitable company, earning 50. 6% net margin versus -66. 0% for Advanced Flower Capital Inc. — meaning it keeps 50. 6% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: TPVG leads at 77. 9% versus -43. 6% for AFCG. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — SUNS leads at 90. 7%, 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.
07Is AFCG or TPVG or HRZN or SUNS more undervalued right now?
The PEG ratio (forward P/E divided by expected earnings growth rate) is the most precise measure of undervaluation relative to growth potential.
By this metric, Horizon Technology Finance Corporation (HRZN) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 0. 26x versus TriplePoint Venture Growth BDC Corp. 's 6. 41x. A PEG below 1. 0 is traditionally considered the threshold for growth-adjusted undervaluation. On forward earnings alone, Horizon Technology Finance Corporation (HRZN) trades at 6. 1x forward P/E versus 6. 6x for Sunrise Realty Trust, Inc. — 0. 5x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for SUNS: 97. 8% to $15. 25.
08Which pays a better dividend — AFCG or TPVG or HRZN or SUNS?
All stocks in this comparison pay dividends.
Advanced Flower Capital Inc. (AFCG) offers the highest yield at 28. 1%, versus 15. 3% for Sunrise Realty Trust, Inc. (SUNS).
09Is AFCG or TPVG or HRZN or SUNS better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, Horizon Technology Finance Corporation (HRZN) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0.
70), 27. 8% yield). Advanced Flower Capital Inc. (AFCG) carries a higher beta of 1. 86 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (HRZN: +52. 9%, AFCG: -42. 4%), 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.
10What are the main differences between AFCG and TPVG and HRZN and SUNS?
These companies operate in different sectors (AFCG (Real Estate) and TPVG (Financial Services) and HRZN (Financial Services) and SUNS (Real Estate)), which means they face different economic cycles, regulatory environments, and macro sensitivities — making direct comparison nuanced.
In terms of investment character: AFCG is a small-cap income-oriented stock; TPVG is a small-cap high-growth stock; HRZN is a small-cap high-growth stock; SUNS is a small-cap high-growth 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.
Find Stocks Like These
Explore pre-built screens for each stock's profile, or build a custom screen to find stocks that outperform all of them.
- Sector: Financial Services
- Market Cap > $100B
- Revenue Growth > 8%
- Dividend Yield > 11.1%
You Might Also Compare
Based on how these companies actually compete and overlap — not just which sector they're filed under.