Engineering & Construction
Compare Stocks
4 / 10Stock Comparison
BLNK vs TPVG vs HRZN vs CHPT
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Asset Management
Asset Management
Specialty Retail
BLNK vs TPVG vs HRZN vs CHPT — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Engineering & Construction | Asset Management | Asset Management | Specialty Retail |
| Market Cap | $91M | $243M | $199M | $134M |
| Revenue (TTM) | $106M | $97M | $40M | $411M |
| Net Income (TTM) | $-126M | $-12M | $28M | $-220M |
| Gross Margin | 26.0% | 83.5% | 18.0% | 30.5% |
| Operating Margin | -119.5% | 77.9% | -4.0% | -51.1% |
| Forward P/E | — | 6.5x | 6.1x | — |
| Total Debt | $11M | $469M | $473M | $272M |
| Cash & Equiv. | $42M | $20M | $106M | $142M |
BLNK vs TPVG vs HRZN vs CHPT — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | May 20 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Blink Charging Co. (BLNK) | 100 | 46.9 | -53.1% |
| TriplePoint Venture… (TPVG) | 100 | 59.8 | -40.2% |
| Horizon Technology … (HRZN) | 100 | 41.4 | -58.6% |
| ChargePoint Holding… (CHPT) | 100 | 3.1 | -96.9% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: BLNK vs TPVG vs HRZN vs CHPT
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
BLNK plays a supporting role in this comparison — it may shine differently against other peers.
TPVG is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if growth exposure and long-term compounding is your priority.
- Rev growth 36.6%, EPS growth 48.8%
- 93.3% 10Y total return vs HRZN's 52.9%
- NIM 7.4% vs HRZN's 7.1%
- 36.6% NII/revenue growth vs BLNK's -11.2%
HRZN carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for income & stability and sleep-well-at-night.
- Dividend streak 0 yrs, beta 0.70, yield 27.8%
- 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
CHPT lags the leaders in this set but could rank higher in a more targeted comparison.
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 36.6% NII/revenue growth vs BLNK's -11.2% | |
| Value | Better valuation composite | |
| Quality / Margins | 50.6% margin vs BLNK's -118.7% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.70 vs BLNK's 2.96 | |
| Dividends | 27.8% yield, vs TPVG's 17.1%, (2 stocks pay no dividend) | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +19.3% vs CHPT's -48.3% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 3.6% ROA vs BLNK's -66.7%, ROIC -0.2% vs -109.7% |
BLNK vs TPVG vs HRZN vs CHPT — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
Segment breakdown not available.
Segment breakdown not available.
BLNK vs TPVG vs HRZN vs CHPT — 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
HRZN leads 2 • BLNK leads 0 • CHPT leads 0 • 2 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)
CHPT is the larger business by revenue, generating $411M annually — 10.3x HRZN's $40M. TPVG is the more profitable business, keeping 50.6% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to BLNK's -118.7%. On growth, BLNK holds the edge at +11.7% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $106M | $97M | $40M | $411M |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | -$115M | -$22M | $19M | -$180M |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | -$126M | -$12M | $28M | -$220M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | -$47M | $35M | $67M | -$67M |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +26.0% | +83.5% | +18.0% | +30.5% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | -119.5% | +77.9% | -4.0% | -51.1% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | -118.7% | +50.6% | -6.6% | -53.5% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | -44.5% | -58.7% | +141.5% | -16.3% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +11.7% | — | — | +7.3% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +99.9% | -2.3% | -29.6% | +28.8% |
Valuation Metrics
HRZN leads this category, winning 3 of 5 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 4.3x trailing earnings, HRZN trades at a 13% valuation discount to TPVG's 4.9x 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 | $91M | $243M | $199M | $134M |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $60M | $691M | $567M | $263M |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | -0.40x | 4.91x | 4.30x | -0.65x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | — | 6.50x | 6.10x | — |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | 4.84x | 0.18x | — |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | — | 9.13x | — | — |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 0.73x | 2.50x | 4.97x | 0.32x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 0.67x | 0.68x | 0.60x | 6.77x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | — | — | 3.51x | — |
Profitability & Efficiency
HRZN leads this category, winning 4 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 $-4 for CHPT. BLNK carries lower financial leverage with a 0.09x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to CHPT's 12.75x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), TPVG scores 5/9 vs BLNK's 3/9, reflecting solid financial health.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | -131.9% | -3.4% | +9.0% | -3.5% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | -66.7% | -1.5% | +3.6% | -25.8% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | -109.7% | +7.2% | -0.2% | -83.8% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | -77.3% | +9.4% | -0.2% | -41.6% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 3 | 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.09x | 1.33x | 1.49x | 12.75x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | -$31M | $449M | $368M | $130M |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $42M | $20M | $106M | $142M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $11M | $469M | $473M | $272M |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | -9064.60x | -1.02x | 0.60x | -8.58x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
TPVG leads this category, winning 5 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in TPVG five years ago would be worth $8,649 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $136 for CHPT. Over the past 12 months, TPVG leads with a +19.3% total return vs CHPT's -48.3%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors TPVG at -1.2% vs CHPT's -67.6% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | +7.2% | -6.3% | -26.7% | -12.5% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | +4.8% | +19.3% | -23.2% | -48.3% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -88.9% | -3.4% | -27.7% | -96.6% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -97.6% | -13.5% | -32.8% | -98.6% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -97.5% | +93.3% | +52.9% | -96.8% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | -51.9% | -1.2% | -10.3% | -67.6% |
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 BLNK's 2.96 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 BLNK's 29.9% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 2.96x | 0.83x | 0.70x | 2.61x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $2.65 | $7.53 | $8.46 | $17.78 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $0.45 | $4.48 | $3.80 | $4.45 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +29.9% | +79.5% | +53.3% | +34.6% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 66.4 | 58.3 | 58.5 | 55.0 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 2.1M | 504K | 1.2M | 474K |
Analyst Outlook
Evenly matched — HRZN and CHPT each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: TPVG as "Hold", HRZN as "Hold", CHPT as "Hold". Consensus price targets imply 49.4% upside for TPVG (target: $9) vs 21.8% for CHPT (target: $8). For income investors, HRZN offers the higher dividend yield at 27.80% vs TPVG's 17.11%.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | — | Hold | Hold | Hold |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | — | $8.95 | $6.50 | $7.50 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | — | 12 | 22 | 21 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | — | +17.1% | +27.8% | — |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | — | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | — | $1.02 | $1.25 | — |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
TPVG leads in 2 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow, Total Returns). HRZN leads in 2 (Valuation Metrics, Profitability & Efficiency). 2 tied.
BLNK vs TPVG vs HRZN vs CHPT: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is BLNK or TPVG or HRZN or CHPT a better buy right now?
For growth investors, TriplePoint Venture Growth BDC Corp.
(TPVG) is the stronger pick with 36. 6% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -11. 2% for Blink Charging Co. (BLNK). 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 — BLNK or TPVG or HRZN or CHPT?
On trailing P/E, Horizon Technology Finance Corporation (HRZN) is the cheapest at 4.
3x versus TriplePoint Venture Growth BDC Corp. at 4. 9x. 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 — BLNK or TPVG or HRZN or CHPT?
Over the past 5 years, TriplePoint Venture Growth BDC Corp.
(TPVG) delivered a total return of -13. 5%, compared to -98. 6% for ChargePoint Holdings, Inc. (CHPT). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: TPVG returned +93. 3% versus BLNK's -97. 5%. 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 — BLNK or TPVG or HRZN or CHPT?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Horizon Technology Finance Corporation (HRZN) is the lower-risk stock at 0.
70β versus Blink Charging Co. 's 2. 96β — meaning BLNK is approximately 322% more volatile than HRZN relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Blink Charging Co. (BLNK) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 9% versus 13% for ChargePoint Holdings, Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — BLNK or TPVG or HRZN or CHPT?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), TriplePoint Venture Growth BDC Corp.
(TPVG) is pulling ahead at 36. 6% versus -11. 2% for Blink Charging Co. (BLNK). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Horizon Technology Finance Corporation grew EPS 756. 3% year-over-year, compared to 26. 4% for ChargePoint Holdings, Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, BLNK leads at 82. 3% 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.
06Which has better profit margins — BLNK or TPVG or HRZN or CHPT?
TriplePoint Venture Growth BDC Corp.
(TPVG) is the more profitable company, earning 50. 6% net margin versus -159. 2% for Blink Charging Co. — 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 -160. 6% for BLNK. 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 BLNK or TPVG or HRZN or CHPT 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. 5x for TriplePoint Venture Growth BDC Corp. — 0. 4x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for TPVG: 49. 4% to $8. 95.
08Which pays a better dividend — BLNK or TPVG or HRZN or CHPT?
In this comparison, HRZN (27.
8% yield), TPVG (17. 1% yield) pay a dividend. BLNK, CHPT do not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
09Is BLNK or TPVG or HRZN or CHPT 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). Blink Charging Co. (BLNK) carries a higher beta of 2. 96 — 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%, BLNK: -97. 5%), 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 BLNK and TPVG and HRZN and CHPT?
These companies operate in different sectors (BLNK (Industrials) and TPVG (Financial Services) and HRZN (Financial Services) and CHPT (Consumer Cyclical)), which means they face different economic cycles, regulatory environments, and macro sensitivities — making direct comparison nuanced.
In terms of investment character: BLNK is a small-cap quality compounder stock; TPVG is a small-cap high-growth stock; HRZN is a small-cap high-growth stock; CHPT is a small-cap quality compounder stock. TPVG, HRZN pay a dividend while BLNK, CHPT 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.
- 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.