Oil & Gas Exploration & Production
Build Your Comparison
Side-by-side financial analysisStock Comparison
MXC vs TPVG vs HRZN vs HTGC vs KO
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Asset Management
Asset Management
Asset Management
Beverages - Non-Alcoholic
MXC vs TPVG vs HRZN vs HTGC vs KO — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Oil & Gas Exploration & Production | Asset Management | Asset Management | Asset Management | Beverages - Non-Alcoholic |
| Market Cap | $16M | $203M | $186M | $2.90B | $341.71B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $7M | $61M | $75M | $578M | $49.28B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $1M | $-12M | $28M | $289M | $13.70B |
| Gross Margin | 35.0% | 72.9% | 35.7% | 88.3% | 61.7% |
| Operating Margin | 21.7% | -35.9% | 26.0% | 65.8% | 29.3% |
| Forward P/E | 9.8x | 5.3x | 6.3x | 8.0x | 24.3x |
| Total Debt | $127K | $469M | $473M | $2.30B | $45.49B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $2M | $20M | $106M | $57M | $10.27B |
MXC vs TPVG vs HRZN vs HTGC vs KO — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | Jun 20 | Jun 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mexco Energy Corpor… (MXC) | 100 | 241.2 | +141.2% |
| TriplePoint Venture… (TPVG) | 100 | 48.6 | -51.4% |
| Horizon Technology … (HRZN) | 100 | 38.7 | -61.3% |
| Hercules Capital, I… (HTGC) | 100 | 147.9 | +47.9% |
| The Coca-Cola Compa… (KO) | 100 | 177.7 | +77.7% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: MXC vs TPVG vs HRZN vs HTGC vs KO
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
MXC is the clearest fit if your priority is long-term compounding.
- 207.8% 10Y total return vs HTGC's 160.5%
TPVG is the clearest fit if your priority is growth exposure.
- Rev growth 36.6%, EPS growth 48.8%
- 36.6% NII/revenue growth vs KO's 1.9%
HRZN has the current edge in this matchup, primarily because of its strength in income & stability and valuation efficiency.
- Dividend streak 1 yrs, beta 0.96, yield 29.7%
- PEG 0.26 vs TPVG's 5.28
- Lower P/E (6.3x vs 24.3x), PEG 0.26 vs 2.17
- 29.7% yield, 1-year raise streak, vs KO's 2.6%
HTGC is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if sleep-well-at-night and defensive is your priority.
- Lower volatility, beta 0.64, current ratio 1.44x
- Beta 0.64, yield 9.1%, current ratio 1.44x
- NIM 9.1% vs HRZN's 7.1%
- 50.1% margin vs TPVG's -19.5%
KO ranks third and is worth considering specifically for momentum and efficiency.
- +17.7% vs MXC's -38.9%
- 13.1% ROA vs TPVG's -1.5%, ROIC 15.8% vs 7.2%
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 36.6% NII/revenue growth vs KO's 1.9% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (6.3x vs 24.3x), PEG 0.26 vs 2.17 | |
| Quality / Margins | 50.1% margin vs TPVG's -19.5% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.64 vs HRZN's 0.96, lower leverage | |
| Dividends | 29.7% yield, 1-year raise streak, vs KO's 2.6% | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +17.7% vs MXC's -38.9% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 13.1% ROA vs TPVG's -1.5%, ROIC 15.8% vs 7.2% |
MXC vs TPVG vs HRZN vs HTGC vs KO — 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.
MXC vs TPVG vs HRZN vs HTGC vs KO — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 5 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
KO leads in 2 of 6 categories
HTGC leads 1 • HRZN leads 1 • MXC leads 0 • TPVG leads 0 • 2 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
HTGC leads this category, winning 3 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
KO is the larger business by revenue, generating $49.3B annually — 7119.3x MXC's $7M. HTGC is the more profitable business, keeping 50.1% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to TPVG's -19.5%. On growth, KO holds the edge at +12.1% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $7M | $61M | $75M | $578M | $49.3B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $4M | -$22M | $19M | $381M | $15.5B |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | $1M | -$12M | $28M | $289M | $13.7B |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | $4M | -$59M | $67M | -$352M | $12.6B |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +35.0% | +72.9% | +35.7% | +88.3% | +61.7% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | +21.7% | -35.9% | +26.0% | +65.8% | +29.3% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | +18.1% | -19.5% | +37.4% | +50.1% | +27.8% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | +56.6% | -97.1% | +89.6% | -60.8% | +25.5% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -26.8% | — | — | — | +12.1% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -90.9% | -2.3% | -29.6% | -20.7% | +18.2% |
Valuation Metrics
HRZN leads this category, winning 4 of 7 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 4.0x trailing earnings, HRZN trades at a 85% valuation discount to KO's 26.1x P/E. Adjusting for growth (PEG ratio), HRZN offers better value at 0.17x vs TPVG's 4.04x — a lower PEG means you pay less per unit of expected earnings growth.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $16M | $203M | $186M | $2.9B | $341.7B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $15M | $652M | $554M | $5.1B | $376.9B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | 9.77x | 4.10x | 4.02x | 8.37x | 26.12x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | — | 5.35x | 6.29x | 8.05x | 24.27x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | 4.04x | 0.17x | — | 2.34x |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 3.31x | 8.61x | — | 14.07x | 25.45x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 2.20x | 2.09x | 4.65x | 5.30x | 7.13x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 0.89x | 0.57x | 0.56x | 1.36x | 9.99x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | 18.97x | — | 3.29x | — | 64.52x |
Profitability & Efficiency
KO leads this category, winning 5 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
KO delivers a 41.1% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $41 in annual profit, vs $-3 for TPVG. MXC carries lower financial leverage with a 0.01x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to HRZN's 1.49x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), KO scores 7/9 vs TPVG's 4/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | +6.5% | -3.4% | +9.0% | +13.2% | +41.1% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | +6.1% | -1.5% | +3.6% | +6.4% | +13.1% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | +9.1% | +7.2% | -0.2% | +6.6% | +15.8% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | +9.7% | +9.4% | -0.2% | +8.8% | +17.3% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 6 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 7 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.01x | 1.33x | 1.49x | 1.04x | 1.33x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | -$2M | $449M | $368M | $2.2B | $35.2B |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $2M | $20M | $106M | $57M | $10.3B |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $126,525 | $469M | $473M | $2.3B | $45.5B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | 666.44x | -1.02x | 0.60x | 4.34x | 10.70x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
KO leads this category, winning 3 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in KO five years ago would be worth $16,528 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $6,297 for HRZN. Over the past 12 months, KO leads with a +17.7% total return vs MXC's -38.9%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors HTGC at 13.8% vs HRZN's -12.3% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | -19.6% | -17.8% | -28.9% | -12.9% | +16.4% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | -38.9% | -11.7% | -27.5% | -3.2% | +17.7% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -31.8% | -24.0% | -32.6% | +47.5% | +39.3% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +4.8% | -21.7% | -37.0% | +47.0% | +65.3% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +207.8% | +80.0% | +39.2% | +160.5% | +115.0% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | -12.0% | -8.7% | -12.3% | +13.8% | +11.7% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — MXC and KO each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
MXC is the less volatile stock with a -0.87 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than HRZN's 0.96 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. KO currently trades 94.5% from its 52-week high vs MXC's 48.0% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | -0.87x | 0.70x | 0.96x | 0.64x | -0.23x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $16.48 | $7.50 | $8.46 | $19.67 | $84.04 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $7.66 | $4.48 | $3.80 | $13.70 | $65.35 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +48.0% | +66.7% | +49.9% | +78.7% | +94.5% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 40.1 | 32.4 | 43.6 | 47.3 | 49.2 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 12K | 289K | 931K | 1.7M | 13.6M |
Analyst Outlook
Evenly matched — HRZN and KO each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: TPVG as "Hold", HRZN as "Hold", HTGC as "Buy", KO as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 79.0% upside for TPVG (target: $9) vs 0.7% for HRZN (target: $4). For income investors, HRZN offers the higher dividend yield at 29.71% vs MXC's 1.25%.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | — | Hold | Hold | Buy | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | — | $8.95 | $4.25 | $16.50 | $86.13 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | — | 12 | 22 | 31 | 48 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | +1.3% | +20.5% | +29.7% | +9.1% | +2.6% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 56 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | $0.10 | $1.02 | $1.25 | $1.42 | $2.04 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | +4.3% | 0.0% | 0.0% | +0.2% | +0.2% |
KO leads in 2 of 6 categories (Profitability & Efficiency, Total Returns). HTGC leads in 1 (Income & Cash Flow). 2 tied.
MXC vs TPVG vs HRZN vs HTGC vs KO: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is MXC or TPVG or HRZN or HTGC or KO 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 1. 9% for The Coca-Cola Company (KO). Horizon Technology Finance Corporation (HRZN) offers the better valuation at 4. 0x trailing P/E (6. 3x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Hercules Capital, Inc. (HTGC) a "Buy" — based on 31 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 — MXC or TPVG or HRZN or HTGC or KO?
On trailing P/E, Horizon Technology Finance Corporation (HRZN) is the cheapest at 4.
0x versus The Coca-Cola Company at 26. 1x. On forward P/E, TriplePoint Venture Growth BDC Corp. is actually cheaper at 5. 3x — notably different from the trailing picture, reflecting expected earnings growth. 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 5. 28x — a PEG below 1. 0 traditionally signals the market is underpricing earnings growth.
03Which is the better long-term investment — MXC or TPVG or HRZN or HTGC or KO?
Over the past 5 years, The Coca-Cola Company (KO) delivered a total return of +65.
3%, compared to -37. 0% for Horizon Technology Finance Corporation (HRZN). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: MXC returned +207. 8% versus HRZN's +39. 2%. 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 — MXC or TPVG or HRZN or HTGC or KO?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Mexco Energy Corporation (MXC) is the lower-risk stock at -0.
87β versus Horizon Technology Finance Corporation's 0. 96β — meaning HRZN is approximately -210% more volatile than MXC relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Mexco Energy Corporation (MXC) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 1% versus 149% for Horizon Technology Finance Corporation — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — MXC or TPVG or HRZN or HTGC or KO?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), TriplePoint Venture Growth BDC Corp.
(TPVG) is pulling ahead at 36. 6% versus 1. 9% for The Coca-Cola Company (KO). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Horizon Technology Finance Corporation grew EPS 756. 3% year-over-year, compared to 14. 9% for Hercules Capital, Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, MXC leads at 3. 8% 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 — MXC or TPVG or HRZN or HTGC or KO?
Hercules Capital, Inc.
(HTGC) is the more profitable company, earning 62. 1% net margin versus -6. 6% for Horizon Technology Finance Corporation — 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 -4. 0% for HRZN. 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 MXC or TPVG or HRZN or HTGC or KO 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 5. 28x. 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 5. 3x forward P/E versus 24. 3x for The Coca-Cola Company — 18. 9x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for TPVG: 79. 0% to $8. 95.
08Which pays a better dividend — MXC or TPVG or HRZN or HTGC or KO?
All stocks in this comparison pay dividends.
Horizon Technology Finance Corporation (HRZN) offers the highest yield at 29. 7%, versus 1. 3% for Mexco Energy Corporation (MXC).
09Is MXC or TPVG or HRZN or HTGC or KO better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, Mexco Energy Corporation (MXC) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β -0.
87), 1. 3% yield, +207. 8% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (MXC: +207. 8%, HRZN: +39. 2%), 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 MXC and TPVG and HRZN and HTGC and KO?
These companies operate in different sectors (MXC (Energy) and TPVG (Financial Services) and HRZN (Financial Services) and HTGC (Financial Services) and KO (Consumer Defensive)), which means they face different economic cycles, regulatory environments, and macro sensitivities — making direct comparison nuanced.
In terms of investment character: MXC is a small-cap deep-value stock; TPVG is a small-cap high-growth stock; HRZN is a small-cap high-growth stock; HTGC is a small-cap high-growth stock; KO is a large-cap quality compounder 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.
You Might Also Compare
Based on how these companies actually compete and overlap — not just which sector they're filed under.