Specialty Business Services
Compare Stocks
5 / 10Stock Comparison
BLMZ vs GAIN vs TPVG vs MRCC vs SLRC
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Asset Management
Asset Management
Asset Management
Asset Management
BLMZ vs GAIN vs TPVG vs MRCC vs SLRC — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Specialty Business Services | Asset Management | Asset Management | Asset Management | Asset Management |
| Market Cap | $165K | $663M | $234M | $110M | $736M |
| Revenue (TTM) | $255M | $90M | $97M | $21M | $220M |
| Net Income (TTM) | $-35M | $130M | $-12M | $-5M | $73M |
| Gross Margin | 28.4% | 68.6% | 83.5% | 60.8% | 73.3% |
| Operating Margin | -13.2% | 72.7% | 77.9% | 51.7% | 72.9% |
| Forward P/E | — | 41.0x | 6.2x | 14.9x | 9.5x |
| Total Debt | $39M | $456M | $469M | $191M | $1.15B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $149M | $14M | $20M | $2M | $16M |
BLMZ vs GAIN vs TPVG vs MRCC vs SLRC — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | Jul 24 | Feb 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Harrison Global Hol… (BLMZ) | 100 | 0.1 | -99.9% |
| Gladstone Investmen… (GAIN) | 100 | 98.6 | -1.4% |
| TriplePoint Venture… (TPVG) | 100 | 67.5 | -32.5% |
| Monroe Capital Corp… (MRCC) | 100 | 82.8 | -17.2% |
| SLR Investment Corp. (SLRC) | 100 | 95.8 | -4.2% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: BLMZ vs GAIN vs TPVG vs MRCC vs SLRC
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
BLMZ ranks third and is worth considering specifically for growth.
- 71.5% revenue growth vs MRCC's -39.7%
GAIN carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for income & stability and long-term compounding.
- Dividend streak 0 yrs, beta 0.51, yield 10.0%
- 321.5% 10Y total return vs SLRC's 63.5%
- Lower volatility, beta 0.51, Low D/E 91.3%, current ratio 3.69x
- Beta 0.51, yield 10.0%, current ratio 3.69x
TPVG is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if growth exposure and bank quality is your priority.
- Rev growth 36.6%, EPS growth 48.8%
- NIM 7.4% vs GAIN's 5.5%
- Lower P/E (6.2x vs 41.0x)
- 17.8% yield, vs GAIN's 10.0%, (1 stock pays no dividend)
MRCC lags the leaders in this set but could rank higher in a more targeted comparison.
SLRC is the clearest fit if your priority is valuation efficiency.
- PEG 0.27 vs TPVG's 6.14
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 71.5% revenue growth vs MRCC's -39.7% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (6.2x vs 41.0x) | |
| Quality / Margins | 72.7% margin vs BLMZ's -13.6% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.51 vs BLMZ's 2.35 | |
| Dividends | 17.8% yield, vs GAIN's 10.0%, (1 stock pays no dividend) | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +32.3% vs BLMZ's -99.2% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 10.5% ROA vs BLMZ's -8.1%, ROIC 5.3% vs -49.8% |
BLMZ vs GAIN vs TPVG vs MRCC vs SLRC — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 5 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
GAIN leads in 2 of 6 categories
BLMZ leads 1 • TPVG leads 1 • MRCC leads 0 • SLRC leads 0 • 2 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
Evenly matched — GAIN and TPVG each lead in 2 of 5 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
BLMZ is the larger business by revenue, generating $255M annually — 12.0x MRCC's $21M. GAIN is the more profitable business, keeping 72.7% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to BLMZ's -13.6%.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $255M | $90M | $97M | $21M | $220M |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | -$19M | $58M | -$22M | $11M | $73M |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | -$35M | $130M | -$12M | -$5M | $73M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | -$67M | -$82M | -$59M | $25M | -$73M |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +28.4% | +68.6% | +83.5% | +60.8% | +73.3% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | -13.2% | +72.7% | +77.9% | +51.7% | +72.9% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | -13.6% | +72.7% | +50.6% | +53.8% | +42.0% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | -26.1% | +126.8% | -58.7% | +5.5% | -32.7% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +108.4% | — | — | — | — |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -112.5% | +58.1% | -2.3% | -51.5% | -100.0% |
Valuation Metrics
BLMZ leads this category, winning 3 of 7 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 4.7x trailing earnings, TPVG trades at a 51% valuation discount to MRCC's 9.6x P/E. Adjusting for growth (PEG ratio), MRCC offers better value at 0.21x vs TPVG's 4.67x — a lower PEG means you pay less per unit of expected earnings growth.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $165,187 | $663M | $234M | $110M | $736M |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | -$534,276 | $1.1B | $683M | $108M | $1.9B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | -0.01x | 9.36x | 4.73x | 9.58x | 7.94x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | — | 41.03x | 6.23x | 14.94x | 9.49x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | — | 4.67x | 0.21x | 0.22x |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | — | 16.91x | 9.02x | — | 11.41x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 0.12x | 7.38x | 2.41x | 3.55x | 3.34x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 0.00x | 1.23x | 0.66x | 0.66x | 0.74x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | — | 5.82x | — | 0.95x | — |
Profitability & Efficiency
Evenly matched — BLMZ and GAIN each lead in 3 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
GAIN delivers a 21.9% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $22 in annual profit, vs $-17 for BLMZ. BLMZ carries lower financial leverage with a 0.08x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to TPVG's 1.33x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), MRCC scores 6/9 vs BLMZ's 1/9, reflecting solid financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | -16.5% | +21.9% | -3.4% | -2.9% | +7.3% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | -8.1% | +10.5% | -1.5% | -1.3% | +2.9% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | -49.8% | +5.3% | +7.2% | +2.0% | +5.8% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | -49.5% | +6.8% | +9.4% | +2.6% | +7.1% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 1 | 4 | 4 | 6 | 3 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.08x | 0.91x | 1.33x | 1.15x | 1.15x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | -$109M | $441M | $449M | $189M | $1.1B |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $149M | $14M | $20M | $2M | $16M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $39M | $456M | $469M | $191M | $1.1B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | -10.16x | 1.58x | -1.02x | 0.69x | 1.06x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
GAIN leads this category, winning 6 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in GAIN five years ago would be worth $17,465 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $5 for BLMZ. Over the past 12 months, GAIN leads with a +32.3% total return vs BLMZ's -99.2%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors GAIN at 16.4% vs BLMZ's -92.1% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | -38.5% | +21.8% | -9.6% | -11.4% | -9.9% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | -99.2% | +32.3% | +7.4% | -2.4% | -3.1% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -99.9% | +57.6% | -5.6% | +18.0% | +29.8% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -99.9% | +74.7% | -15.2% | -0.9% | +15.9% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -99.9% | +321.5% | +91.2% | +22.8% | +63.5% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | -92.1% | +16.4% | -1.9% | +5.7% | +9.1% |
Risk & Volatility
GAIN leads this category, winning 2 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
GAIN is the less volatile stock with a 0.51 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than BLMZ's 2.35 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. GAIN currently trades 97.2% from its 52-week high vs BLMZ's 0.3% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 2.35x | 0.51x | 0.77x | 0.76x | 0.64x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $3.90 | $17.14 | $7.53 | $7.76 | $17.20 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $0.01 | $13.11 | $4.48 | $4.04 | $13.41 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +0.3% | +97.2% | +76.6% | +65.5% | +78.4% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 32.5 | 64.3 | 67.6 | 50.4 | 30.8 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 1K | 370K | 501K | 158K | 416K |
Analyst Outlook
TPVG leads this category, winning 1 of 1 comparable metric.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: GAIN as "Hold", TPVG as "Hold", MRCC as "Hold", SLRC as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 57.5% upside for MRCC (target: $8) vs -10.0% for GAIN (target: $15). For income investors, TPVG offers the higher dividend yield at 17.76% vs MRCC's 0.24%.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | — | Hold | Hold | Hold | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | — | $15.00 | $8.95 | $8.00 | $14.50 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | — | 7 | 12 | 11 | 15 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | — | +10.0% | +17.8% | +0.2% | +12.2% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | — | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | — | $1.66 | $1.02 | $0.93 | $1.64 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
GAIN leads in 2 of 6 categories (Total Returns, Risk & Volatility). BLMZ leads in 1 (Valuation Metrics). 2 tied.
BLMZ vs GAIN vs TPVG vs MRCC vs SLRC: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is BLMZ or GAIN or TPVG or MRCC or SLRC a better buy right now?
For growth investors, Harrison Global Holdings Inc.
(BLMZ) is the stronger pick with 71. 5% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -39. 7% for Monroe Capital Corporation (MRCC). TriplePoint Venture Growth BDC Corp. (TPVG) offers the better valuation at 4. 7x trailing P/E (6. 2x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate SLR Investment Corp. (SLRC) 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.
02Which has the better valuation — BLMZ or GAIN or TPVG or MRCC or SLRC?
On trailing P/E, TriplePoint Venture Growth BDC Corp.
(TPVG) is the cheapest at 4. 7x versus Monroe Capital Corporation at 9. 6x. On forward P/E, TriplePoint Venture Growth BDC Corp. is actually cheaper at 6. 2x. The PEG ratio (P/E divided by earnings growth rate) is the most growth-adjusted single valuation metric: SLR Investment Corp. wins at 0. 27x versus TriplePoint Venture Growth BDC Corp. 's 6. 14x — a PEG below 1. 0 traditionally signals the market is underpricing earnings growth.
03Which is the better long-term investment — BLMZ or GAIN or TPVG or MRCC or SLRC?
Over the past 5 years, Gladstone Investment Corporation (GAIN) delivered a total return of +74.
7%, compared to -99. 9% for Harrison Global Holdings Inc. (BLMZ). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: GAIN returned +321. 5% versus BLMZ's -99. 9%. 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 — BLMZ or GAIN or TPVG or MRCC or SLRC?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Gladstone Investment Corporation (GAIN) is the lower-risk stock at 0.
51β versus Harrison Global Holdings Inc. 's 2. 35β — meaning BLMZ is approximately 364% more volatile than GAIN relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Harrison Global Holdings Inc. (BLMZ) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 8% versus 133% for TriplePoint Venture Growth BDC Corp. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — BLMZ or GAIN or TPVG or MRCC or SLRC?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), Harrison Global Holdings Inc.
(BLMZ) is pulling ahead at 71. 5% versus -39. 7% for Monroe Capital Corporation (MRCC). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: TriplePoint Venture Growth BDC Corp. grew EPS 48. 8% year-over-year, compared to -1299. 2% for Harrison Global Holdings 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 — BLMZ or GAIN or TPVG or MRCC or SLRC?
Gladstone Investment Corporation (GAIN) is the more profitable company, earning 72.
7% net margin versus -100. 5% for Harrison Global Holdings Inc. — meaning it keeps 72. 7% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: TPVG leads at 77. 9% versus -84. 5% for BLMZ. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — TPVG leads at 83. 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.
07Is BLMZ or GAIN or TPVG or MRCC or SLRC 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, SLR Investment Corp. (SLRC) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 0. 27x versus TriplePoint Venture Growth BDC Corp. 's 6. 14x. A PEG below 1. 0 is traditionally considered the threshold for growth-adjusted undervaluation. On forward earnings alone, TriplePoint Venture Growth BDC Corp. (TPVG) trades at 6. 2x forward P/E versus 41. 0x for Gladstone Investment Corporation — 34. 8x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for MRCC: 57. 5% to $8. 00.
08Which pays a better dividend — BLMZ or GAIN or TPVG or MRCC or SLRC?
In this comparison, TPVG (17.
8% yield), SLRC (12. 2% yield), GAIN (10. 0% yield), MRCC (0. 2% yield) pay a dividend. BLMZ does not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
09Is BLMZ or GAIN or TPVG or MRCC or SLRC better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, Gladstone Investment Corporation (GAIN) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0.
51), 10. 0% yield, +321. 5% 10Y return). Harrison Global Holdings Inc. (BLMZ) carries a higher beta of 2. 35 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (GAIN: +321. 5%, BLMZ: -99. 9%), 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 BLMZ and GAIN and TPVG and MRCC and SLRC?
These companies operate in different sectors (BLMZ (Industrials) and GAIN (Financial Services) and TPVG (Financial Services) and MRCC (Financial Services) and SLRC (Financial Services)), which means they face different economic cycles, regulatory environments, and macro sensitivities — making direct comparison nuanced.
In terms of investment character: BLMZ is a small-cap high-growth stock; GAIN is a small-cap deep-value stock; TPVG is a small-cap high-growth stock; MRCC is a small-cap deep-value stock; SLRC is a small-cap high-growth stock. GAIN, TPVG, SLRC pay a dividend while BLMZ, MRCC 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.
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.
You Might Also Compare
Based on how these companies actually compete and overlap — not just which sector they're filed under.