APPS vs IAS

For growth investors, Integral Ad Science Holding Corp.

(IAS) is the stronger pick with 11. 7% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -9. 9% for Digital Turbine, Inc. (APPS). 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.

On forward P/E, Digital Turbine, Inc.

is actually cheaper at 10. 2x — notably different from the trailing picture, reflecting expected earnings growth.

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

(IAS) delivered a total return of -49. 8%, compared to -93. 3% for Digital Turbine, Inc. (APPS). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: APPS returned +359. 1% versus IAS's -49. 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. 80β versus Digital Turbine, Inc. 's 1. 61β — meaning APPS is approximately 101% 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 3% for Digital Turbine, Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.

By revenue growth (latest reported year), Integral Ad Science Holding Corp.

(IAS) is pulling ahead at 11. 7% versus -9. 9% for Digital Turbine, Inc. (APPS). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Integral Ad Science Holding Corp. grew EPS 413. 4% year-over-year, compared to 78. 6% for Digital Turbine, Inc.. 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 -18. 8% for Digital Turbine, Inc. — 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 -11. 0% for APPS. 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.

On forward earnings alone, Digital Turbine, Inc.

(APPS) trades at 10. 2x forward P/E versus 27. 5x for Integral Ad Science Holding Corp. — 17. 3x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for APPS: 704. 5% to $32. 50.

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. 80)). Digital Turbine, Inc. (APPS) carries a higher beta of 1. 61 — 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%, APPS: +359. 1%), 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 (APPS (Technology) and IAS (Communication Services)), which means they face different economic cycles, regulatory environments, and macro sensitivities — making direct comparison nuanced.

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.