NAAS vs TPVG vs HRZN vs BLNK vs CHPT

For growth investors, TriplePoint Venture Growth BDC Corp.

(TPVG) is the stronger pick with 36. 6% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -37. 2% for NaaS Technology Inc. (NAAS). Horizon Technology Finance Corporation (HRZN) offers the better valuation at 4. 3x trailing P/E (6. 0x 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.

On trailing P/E, Horizon Technology Finance Corporation (HRZN) is the cheapest at 4.

3x versus TriplePoint Venture Growth BDC Corp. at 4. 7x. On forward P/E, Horizon Technology Finance Corporation is actually cheaper at 6. 0x. 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. 25x versus TriplePoint Venture Growth BDC Corp. 's 6. 14x — a PEG below 1. 0 traditionally signals the market is underpricing earnings growth.

Over the past 5 years, TriplePoint Venture Growth BDC Corp.

(TPVG) delivered a total return of -15. 2%, compared to -100. 0% for NaaS Technology Inc. (NAAS). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: TPVG returned +91. 2% versus NAAS's -100. 0%. 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), Horizon Technology Finance Corporation (HRZN) is the lower-risk stock at 0.

77β versus Blink Charging Co. 's 3. 11β — meaning BLNK is approximately 306% 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.

By revenue growth (latest reported year), TriplePoint Venture Growth BDC Corp.

(TPVG) is pulling ahead at 36. 6% versus -37. 2% for NaaS Technology Inc. (NAAS). 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.

TriplePoint Venture Growth BDC Corp.

(TPVG) is the more profitable company, earning 50. 6% net margin versus -454. 5% for NaaS Technology Inc. — 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 -401. 6% for NAAS. 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.

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. 25x 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, Horizon Technology Finance Corporation (HRZN) trades at 6. 0x forward P/E versus 6. 2x for TriplePoint Venture Growth BDC Corp. — 0. 2x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for TPVG: 55. 1% to $8. 95.

In this comparison, HRZN (27.

6% yield), TPVG (17. 8% yield) pay a dividend. NAAS, BLNK, CHPT do not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.

For long-horizon retirement investors, TriplePoint Venture Growth BDC Corp.

(TPVG) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0. 77), 17. 8% yield). Blink Charging Co. (BLNK) carries a higher beta of 3. 11 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (TPVG: +91. 2%, BLNK: -97. 3%), 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 (NAAS (Consumer Cyclical) and TPVG (Financial Services) and HRZN (Financial Services) and BLNK (Industrials) 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: NAAS is a small-cap quality compounder stock; TPVG is a small-cap high-growth stock; HRZN is a small-cap high-growth stock; BLNK is a small-cap quality compounder stock; CHPT is a small-cap quality compounder stock. TPVG, HRZN pay a dividend while NAAS, 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.