Advertising Agencies
Compare Stocks
5 / 10Stock Comparison
FLNT vs TPVG vs ACMR vs HRZN vs HTGC
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Asset Management
Semiconductors
Asset Management
Asset Management
FLNT vs TPVG vs ACMR vs HRZN vs HTGC — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Advertising Agencies | Asset Management | Semiconductors | Asset Management | Asset Management |
| Market Cap | $82M | $243M | $3.92B | $199M | $3.07B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $209M | $97M | $901M | $40M | $547M |
| Net Income (TTM) | $-27M | $-12M | $94M | $28M | $289M |
| Gross Margin | 24.5% | 83.5% | 44.4% | 18.0% | 87.2% |
| Operating Margin | -9.7% | 77.9% | 12.1% | -4.0% | 66.7% |
| Forward P/E | — | 6.5x | 29.7x | 6.1x | 8.4x |
| Total Debt | $38M | $469M | $303M | $473M | $2.30B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $13M | $20M | $766M | $106M | $57M |
FLNT vs TPVG vs ACMR vs HRZN vs HTGC — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | May 20 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fluent, Inc. (FLNT) | 100 | 23.1 | -76.9% |
| TriplePoint Venture… (TPVG) | 100 | 59.8 | -40.2% |
| ACM Research, Inc. (ACMR) | 100 | 297.0 | +197.0% |
| Horizon Technology … (HRZN) | 100 | 41.4 | -58.6% |
| Hercules Capital, I… (HTGC) | 100 | 147.2 | +47.2% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: FLNT vs TPVG vs ACMR vs HRZN vs HTGC
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
Among these 5 stocks, FLNT doesn't own a clear edge in any measured category.
TPVG ranks third and is worth considering specifically for growth exposure.
- Rev growth 36.6%, EPS growth 48.8%
- 36.6% NII/revenue growth vs FLNT's -18.0%
ACMR is the clearest fit if your priority is long-term compounding.
- 30.7% 10Y total return vs HTGC's 171.6%
- +195.6% vs HRZN's -23.2%
HRZN is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if income & stability and valuation efficiency is your priority.
- Dividend streak 0 yrs, beta 0.70, yield 27.8%
- PEG 0.26 vs TPVG's 6.41
- Beta 0.70, yield 27.8%, current ratio 1.24x
- Lower P/E (6.1x vs 8.4x)
HTGC carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for sleep-well-at-night and bank quality.
- Lower volatility, beta 0.69, current ratio 1.44x
- NIM 9.1% vs HRZN's 7.1%
- 62.1% margin vs FLNT's -13.0%
- Beta 0.69 vs ACMR's 3.24
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 36.6% NII/revenue growth vs FLNT's -18.0% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (6.1x vs 8.4x) | |
| Quality / Margins | 62.1% margin vs FLNT's -13.0% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.69 vs ACMR's 3.24 | |
| Dividends | 27.8% yield, vs ACMR's 0.2%, (1 stock pays no dividend) | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +195.6% vs HRZN's -23.2% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 6.4% ROA vs FLNT's -34.3%, ROIC 6.6% vs -31.8% |
FLNT vs TPVG vs ACMR vs HRZN vs HTGC — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
Segment breakdown not available.
Segment breakdown not available.
Segment breakdown not available.
FLNT vs TPVG vs ACMR vs HRZN vs HTGC — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 5 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
HTGC leads in 2 of 6 categories
HRZN leads 1 • ACMR leads 1 • FLNT leads 0 • TPVG leads 0 • 2 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
HTGC leads this category, winning 2 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
ACMR is the larger business by revenue, generating $901M annually — 22.5x HRZN's $40M. HTGC is the more profitable business, keeping 62.1% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to FLNT's -13.0%. On growth, ACMR holds the edge at +9.4% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $209M | $97M | $901M | $40M | $547M |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | -$11M | -$22M | $126M | $19M | $381M |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | -$27M | -$12M | $94M | $28M | $289M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | -$5M | $35M | -$69M | $67M | -$352M |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +24.5% | +83.5% | +44.4% | +18.0% | +87.2% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | -9.7% | +77.9% | +12.1% | -4.0% | +66.7% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | -13.0% | +50.6% | +10.4% | -6.6% | +62.1% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | -2.4% | -58.7% | -7.6% | +141.5% | -77.8% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -5.5% | — | +9.4% | — | — |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +31.6% | -2.3% | -76.1% | -29.6% | -20.7% |
Valuation Metrics
HRZN leads this category, winning 3 of 6 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 4.3x trailing earnings, HRZN trades at a 90% valuation discount to ACMR's 43.2x 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 | $82M | $243M | $3.9B | $199M | $3.1B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $107M | $691M | $3.5B | $567M | $5.3B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | -2.64x | 4.91x | 43.21x | 4.30x | 8.86x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | — | 6.50x | 29.68x | 6.10x | 8.41x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | 4.84x | 1.22x | 0.18x | — |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | — | 9.13x | 27.49x | — | 14.54x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 0.39x | 2.50x | 4.35x | 4.97x | 5.61x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 3.95x | 0.68x | 2.06x | 0.60x | 1.44x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | — | — | — | 3.51x | — |
Profitability & Efficiency
Evenly matched — TPVG and ACMR and HTGC each lead in 3 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
HTGC delivers a 13.2% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $13 in annual profit, vs $-134 for FLNT. ACMR carries lower financial leverage with a 0.16x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to FLNT's 2.07x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), TPVG scores 5/9 vs ACMR's 2/9, reflecting solid financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | -134.2% | -3.4% | +6.1% | +9.0% | +13.2% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | -34.3% | -1.5% | +3.9% | +3.6% | +6.4% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | -31.8% | +7.2% | +7.0% | -0.2% | +6.6% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | -76.6% | +9.4% | +6.6% | -0.2% | +8.8% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 3 | 5 | 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 2.07x | 1.33x | 0.16x | 1.49x | 1.04x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $25M | $449M | -$463M | $368M | $2.2B |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $13M | $20M | $766M | $106M | $57M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $38M | $469M | $303M | $473M | $2.3B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | -3.74x | -1.02x | 20.44x | 0.60x | 4.34x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
ACMR leads this category, winning 6 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in ACMR five years ago would be worth $23,344 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $1,342 for FLNT. Over the past 12 months, ACMR leads with a +195.6% total return vs HRZN's -23.2%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors ACMR at 80.5% vs FLNT's -14.6% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | +9.5% | -6.3% | +31.9% | -26.7% | -10.6% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | +19.9% | +19.3% | +195.6% | -23.2% | +6.6% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -37.8% | -3.4% | +487.9% | -27.7% | +63.9% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -86.6% | -13.5% | +133.4% | -32.8% | +46.8% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -90.7% | +93.3% | +3065.8% | +52.9% | +171.6% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | -14.6% | -1.2% | +80.5% | -10.3% | +17.9% |
Risk & Volatility
HTGC leads this category, winning 2 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
HTGC is the less volatile stock with a 0.69 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than ACMR's 3.24 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. HTGC currently trades 83.4% from its 52-week high vs HRZN's 53.3% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 1.14x | 0.83x | 3.24x | 0.70x | 0.69x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $4.15 | $7.53 | $71.65 | $8.46 | $19.67 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $1.50 | $4.48 | $19.26 | $3.80 | $13.70 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +66.7% | +79.5% | +82.6% | +53.3% | +83.4% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 38.9 | 58.3 | 60.7 | 58.5 | 64.7 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 33K | 504K | 1.2M | 1.2M | 2.5M |
Analyst Outlook
Evenly matched — ACMR and HRZN each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: FLNT as "Hold", TPVG as "Hold", ACMR as "Buy", HRZN as "Hold", HTGC as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 49.4% upside for TPVG (target: $9) vs -32.4% for ACMR (target: $40). For income investors, HRZN offers the higher dividend yield at 27.80% vs ACMR's 0.19%.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Hold | Hold | Buy | Hold | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $3.50 | $8.95 | $40.00 | $6.50 | $18.92 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 2 | 12 | 10 | 22 | 31 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | — | +17.1% | +0.2% | +27.8% | +8.6% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | — | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | — | $1.02 | $0.11 | $1.25 | $1.42 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | 0.0% | 0.0% | +0.2% | 0.0% | +0.2% |
HTGC leads in 2 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow, Risk & Volatility). HRZN leads in 1 (Valuation Metrics). 2 tied.
FLNT vs TPVG vs ACMR vs HRZN vs HTGC: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is FLNT or TPVG or ACMR or HRZN or HTGC 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 -18. 0% for Fluent, Inc. (FLNT). 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 ACM Research, Inc. (ACMR) a "Buy" — based on 10 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 — FLNT or TPVG or ACMR or HRZN or HTGC?
On trailing P/E, Horizon Technology Finance Corporation (HRZN) is the cheapest at 4.
3x versus ACM Research, Inc. at 43. 2x. 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 — FLNT or TPVG or ACMR or HRZN or HTGC?
Over the past 5 years, ACM Research, Inc.
(ACMR) delivered a total return of +133. 4%, compared to -86. 6% for Fluent, Inc. (FLNT). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: ACMR returned +30. 7% versus FLNT's -90. 7%. 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 — FLNT or TPVG or ACMR or HRZN or HTGC?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Hercules Capital, Inc.
(HTGC) is the lower-risk stock at 0. 69β versus ACM Research, Inc. 's 3. 24β — meaning ACMR is approximately 370% more volatile than HTGC relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, ACM Research, Inc. (ACMR) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 16% versus 2% for Fluent, Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — FLNT or TPVG or ACMR or HRZN or HTGC?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), TriplePoint Venture Growth BDC Corp.
(TPVG) is pulling ahead at 36. 6% versus -18. 0% for Fluent, Inc. (FLNT). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Horizon Technology Finance Corporation grew EPS 756. 3% year-over-year, compared to -10. 5% for ACM Research, Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, ACMR leads at 32. 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 — FLNT or TPVG or ACMR or HRZN or HTGC?
Hercules Capital, Inc.
(HTGC) is the more profitable company, earning 62. 1% net margin versus -13. 0% for Fluent, Inc. — meaning it keeps 62. 1% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: TPVG leads at 77. 9% versus -9. 7% for FLNT. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — HTGC leads at 87. 2%, 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 FLNT or TPVG or ACMR or HRZN or HTGC 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 29. 7x for ACM Research, Inc. — 23. 6x 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 — FLNT or TPVG or ACMR or HRZN or HTGC?
In this comparison, HRZN (27.
8% yield), TPVG (17. 1% yield), HTGC (8. 6% yield), ACMR (0. 2% yield) pay a dividend. FLNT does not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
09Is FLNT or TPVG or ACMR or HRZN or HTGC better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, Hercules Capital, Inc.
(HTGC) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0. 69), 8. 6% yield, +171. 6% 10Y return). ACM Research, Inc. (ACMR) carries a higher beta of 3. 24 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (HTGC: +171. 6%, ACMR: +30. 7%), 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 FLNT and TPVG and ACMR and HRZN and HTGC?
These companies operate in different sectors (FLNT (Communication Services) and TPVG (Financial Services) and ACMR (Technology) and HRZN (Financial Services) and HTGC (Financial Services)), which means they face different economic cycles, regulatory environments, and macro sensitivities — making direct comparison nuanced.
In terms of investment character: FLNT is a small-cap quality compounder stock; TPVG is a small-cap high-growth stock; ACMR is a small-cap high-growth stock; HRZN is a small-cap high-growth stock; HTGC is a small-cap high-growth stock. TPVG, HRZN, HTGC pay a dividend while FLNT, ACMR 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.