Advertising Agencies
Compare Stocks
5 / 10Stock Comparison
OMC vs HYFM vs IPG vs GRWG vs WPP
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Agricultural - Machinery
Advertising Agencies
Specialty Retail
Advertising Agencies
OMC vs HYFM vs IPG vs GRWG vs WPP — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Advertising Agencies | Agricultural - Machinery | Advertising Agencies | Specialty Retail | Advertising Agencies |
| Market Cap | $23.91B | $5M | $8.93B | $85M | $4.09B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $19.82B | $146M | $10.21B | $162M | $29.03B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $63M | $-65M | $552M | $-24M | $584M |
| Gross Margin | 16.8% | 10.2% | 18.2% | 26.8% | 16.3% |
| Operating Margin | 13.7% | -35.8% | 9.7% | -15.7% | 6.7% |
| Forward P/E | 7.2x | — | 7.8x | — | 7.6x |
| Total Debt | $12.78B | $170M | $4.25B | $29M | $6.35B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $6.88B | $26M | $2.19B | $30M | $2.64B |
OMC vs HYFM vs IPG vs GRWG vs WPP — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | Dec 20 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Omnicom Group Inc. (OMC) | 100 | 123.6 | +23.6% |
| Hydrofarm Holdings … (HYFM) | 100 | 0.2 | -99.8% |
| The Interpublic Gro… (IPG) | 100 | 109.1 | +9.1% |
| GrowGeneration Corp. (GRWG) | 100 | 3.5 | -96.5% |
| WPP plc (WPP) | 100 | 35.1 | -64.9% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: OMC vs HYFM vs IPG vs GRWG vs WPP
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
OMC carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for sleep-well-at-night.
- Lower volatility, beta 0.58, Low D/E 97.9%, current ratio 0.93x
- 10.1% revenue growth vs HYFM's -16.0%
- Better valuation composite
- Beta 0.58 vs GRWG's 1.15
HYFM lags the leaders in this set but could rank higher in a more targeted comparison.
IPG is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if income & stability and long-term compounding is your priority.
- Dividend streak 16 yrs, beta 0.63, yield 5.4%
- 45.7% 10Y total return vs OMC's 23.7%
- Beta 0.63, yield 5.4%, current ratio 1.09x
- 5.4% margin vs HYFM's -44.5%
GRWG ranks third and is worth considering specifically for momentum.
- +15.4% vs HYFM's -75.5%
WPP is the clearest fit if your priority is growth exposure.
- Rev growth -0.7%, EPS growth 390.0%, 3Y rev CAGR 4.8%
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 10.1% revenue growth vs HYFM's -16.0% | |
| Value | Better valuation composite | |
| Quality / Margins | 5.4% margin vs HYFM's -44.5% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.58 vs GRWG's 1.15 | |
| Dividends | 5.4% yield, 16-year raise streak, vs WPP's 13.9%, (2 stocks pay no dividend) | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +15.4% vs HYFM's -75.5% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 3.2% ROA vs HYFM's -16.3%, ROIC 14.7% vs -9.6% |
OMC vs HYFM vs IPG vs GRWG vs WPP — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
Segment breakdown not available.
OMC vs HYFM vs IPG vs GRWG vs WPP — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 5 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
OMC leads in 3 of 6 categories
IPG leads 1 • HYFM leads 0 • GRWG leads 0 • WPP leads 0 • 2 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
OMC leads this category, winning 3 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
WPP is the larger business by revenue, generating $29.0B annually — 198.2x HYFM's $146M. IPG is the more profitable business, keeping 5.4% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to HYFM's -44.5%. On growth, OMC holds the edge at +69.2% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $19.8B | $146M | $10.2B | $162M | $29.0B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $3.1B | -$23M | $1.2B | -$14M | $2.6B |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | $63M | -$65M | $552M | -$24M | $584M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | $3.0B | -$8M | $807M | -$10M | $1.7B |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +16.8% | +10.2% | +18.2% | +26.8% | +16.3% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | +13.7% | -35.8% | +9.7% | -15.7% | +6.7% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | +0.3% | -44.5% | +5.4% | -14.9% | +2.0% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | +15.1% | -5.7% | +7.9% | -6.2% | +5.9% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +69.2% | -33.3% | -5.1% | +1.0% | -7.8% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +40.7% | -22.7% | +5.4% | +69.2% | -78.9% |
Valuation Metrics
Evenly matched — OMC and HYFM and WPP each lead in 2 of 6 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 5.7x trailing earnings, WPP trades at a 57% valuation discount to IPG's 13.4x P/E. On an enterprise value basis, WPP's 3.7x EV/EBITDA is more attractive than OMC's 10.4x.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $23.9B | $5M | $8.9B | $85M | $4.1B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $29.8B | $148M | $11.0B | $84M | $9.1B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | -285.41x | -0.07x | 13.43x | -3.55x | 5.71x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | 7.25x | — | 7.78x | — | 7.63x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | — | 7.78x | — | — |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 10.41x | — | 7.52x | — | 3.70x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 1.38x | 0.03x | 0.83x | 0.53x | 0.20x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 1.21x | 0.02x | 2.37x | 0.87x | 0.82x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | 8.58x | — | 9.77x | — | 2.57x |
Profitability & Efficiency
IPG leads this category, winning 5 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
WPP delivers a 17.1% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $17 in annual profit, vs $-32 for HYFM. GRWG carries lower financial leverage with a 0.30x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to WPP's 1.70x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), IPG scores 8/9 vs OMC's 2/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | +0.7% | -32.3% | +14.6% | -22.9% | +17.1% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | +0.2% | -16.3% | +3.2% | -15.2% | +2.5% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | +14.5% | -9.6% | +14.7% | -16.9% | +12.5% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | +13.5% | -12.1% | +13.7% | -18.8% | +13.0% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 2 | 3 | 8 | 6 | 7 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.98x | 0.76x | 1.09x | 0.30x | 1.70x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $5.9B | $143M | $2.1B | -$929,000 | $3.7B |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $6.9B | $26M | $2.2B | $30M | $2.6B |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $12.8B | $170M | $4.3B | $29M | $6.3B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | 2.51x | -3.77x | 4.90x | — | 2.37x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
OMC leads this category, winning 4 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in OMC five years ago would be worth $10,762 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $17 for HYFM. Over the past 12 months, GRWG leads with a +15.4% total return vs HYFM's -75.5%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors OMC at -2.3% vs HYFM's -56.9% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | -4.3% | -35.6% | — | -7.8% | -17.2% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | +4.7% | -75.5% | -0.0% | +15.4% | -45.7% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -6.9% | -92.0% | -23.0% | -62.0% | -53.9% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +7.6% | -99.8% | -8.2% | -96.6% | -56.7% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +23.7% | -99.8% | +45.7% | -75.7% | -58.8% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | -2.3% | -56.9% | -8.4% | -27.6% | -22.8% |
Risk & Volatility
OMC leads this category, winning 2 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
OMC is the less volatile stock with a 0.58 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than GRWG's 1.15 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. OMC currently trades 88.4% from its 52-week high vs HYFM's 21.5% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 0.58x | 0.73x | 0.63x | 1.15x | 1.08x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $87.17 | $4.78 | $28.42 | $2.40 | $40.95 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $66.33 | $0.81 | $22.55 | $0.87 | $14.81 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +88.4% | +21.5% | +86.5% | +59.2% | +46.3% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 50.1 | 48.2 | 45.1 | 66.4 | 65.5 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 4.2M | 41K | 81.3M | 482K | 606K |
Analyst Outlook
Evenly matched — IPG and WPP each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: OMC as "Hold", IPG as "Hold", WPP as "Hold". Consensus price targets imply 48.8% upside for IPG (target: $37) vs 21.6% for OMC (target: $94). For income investors, WPP offers the higher dividend yield at 13.85% vs OMC's 3.48%.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Hold | — | Hold | — | Hold |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $93.67 | — | $36.57 | — | — |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 34 | — | 34 | — | 13 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | +3.5% | — | +5.4% | — | +13.9% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 0 | 1 | 16 | — | 4 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | $2.68 | — | $1.31 | — | $1.94 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | +3.0% | 0.0% | +2.6% | 0.0% | +2.7% |
OMC leads in 3 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow, Total Returns). IPG leads in 1 (Profitability & Efficiency). 2 tied.
OMC vs HYFM vs IPG vs GRWG vs WPP: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is OMC or HYFM or IPG or GRWG or WPP a better buy right now?
For growth investors, Omnicom Group Inc.
(OMC) is the stronger pick with 10. 1% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -16. 0% for Hydrofarm Holdings Group, Inc. (HYFM). WPP plc (WPP) offers the better valuation at 5. 7x trailing P/E (7. 6x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Omnicom Group Inc. (OMC) a "Hold" — based on 34 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 — OMC or HYFM or IPG or GRWG or WPP?
On trailing P/E, WPP plc (WPP) is the cheapest at 5.
7x versus The Interpublic Group of Companies, Inc. at 13. 4x. On forward P/E, Omnicom Group Inc. is actually cheaper at 7. 2x — notably different from the trailing picture, reflecting expected earnings growth.
03Which is the better long-term investment — OMC or HYFM or IPG or GRWG or WPP?
Over the past 5 years, Omnicom Group Inc.
(OMC) delivered a total return of +7. 6%, compared to -99. 8% for Hydrofarm Holdings Group, Inc. (HYFM). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: IPG returned +45. 7% versus HYFM's -99. 8%. 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 — OMC or HYFM or IPG or GRWG or WPP?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Omnicom Group Inc.
(OMC) is the lower-risk stock at 0. 58β versus GrowGeneration Corp. 's 1. 15β — meaning GRWG is approximately 98% more volatile than OMC relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, GrowGeneration Corp. (GRWG) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 30% versus 170% for WPP plc — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — OMC or HYFM or IPG or GRWG or WPP?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), Omnicom Group Inc.
(OMC) is pulling ahead at 10. 1% versus -16. 0% for Hydrofarm Holdings Group, Inc. (HYFM). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: WPP plc grew EPS 390. 0% year-over-year, compared to -103. 6% for Omnicom Group Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, OMC leads at 6. 5% 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 — OMC or HYFM or IPG or GRWG or WPP?
The Interpublic Group of Companies, Inc.
(IPG) is the more profitable company, earning 6. 4% net margin versus -35. 1% for Hydrofarm Holdings Group, Inc. — meaning it keeps 6. 4% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: OMC leads at 15. 0% versus -27. 4% for HYFM. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — GRWG leads at 26. 8%, 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 OMC or HYFM or IPG or GRWG or WPP more undervalued right now?
On forward earnings alone, Omnicom Group Inc.
(OMC) trades at 7. 2x forward P/E versus 7. 8x for The Interpublic Group of Companies, Inc. — 0. 5x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for IPG: 48. 8% to $36. 57.
08Which pays a better dividend — OMC or HYFM or IPG or GRWG or WPP?
In this comparison, WPP (13.
9% yield), IPG (5. 4% yield), OMC (3. 5% yield) pay a dividend. HYFM, GRWG do not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
09Is OMC or HYFM or IPG or GRWG or WPP better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, Omnicom Group Inc.
(OMC) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0. 58), 3. 5% yield). Both have compounded well over 10 years (OMC: +23. 7%, GRWG: -75. 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 OMC and HYFM and IPG and GRWG and WPP?
These companies operate in different sectors (OMC (Communication Services) and HYFM (Industrials) and IPG (Communication Services) and GRWG (Consumer Cyclical) and WPP (Communication Services)), which means they face different economic cycles, regulatory environments, and macro sensitivities — making direct comparison nuanced.
In terms of investment character: OMC is a mid-cap income-oriented stock; HYFM is a small-cap quality compounder stock; IPG is a small-cap deep-value stock; GRWG is a small-cap quality compounder stock; WPP is a small-cap deep-value stock. OMC, IPG, WPP pay a dividend while HYFM, GRWG 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: Communication Services
- Market Cap > $100B
- Revenue Growth > 34%
- Dividend Yield > 1.3%
You Might Also Compare
Based on how these companies actually compete and overlap — not just which sector they're filed under.