Asset Management
Compare Stocks
2 / 10Stock Comparison
SAR vs TPVG
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Asset Management
SAR vs TPVG — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | ||
|---|---|---|
| Industry | Asset Management | Asset Management |
| Market Cap | $363M | $243M |
| Revenue (TTM) | $125.71B | $97M |
| Net Income (TTM) | $39M | $-12M |
| Gross Margin | — | 83.5% |
| Operating Margin | -0.1% | 77.9% |
| Forward P/E | 9.0x | 6.5x |
| Total Debt | $293.33B | $469M |
| Cash & Equiv. | $22.32B | $20M |
SAR vs TPVG — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | May 20 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Saratoga Investment… (SAR) | 100 | 147.2 | +47.2% |
| TriplePoint Venture… (TPVG) | 100 | 59.8 | -40.2% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: SAR vs TPVG
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
SAR carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for income & stability and growth exposure.
- Dividend streak 5 yrs, beta 0.60, yield 100.0%
- Rev growth 1.3K%, EPS growth 14.4%
- 183.2% 10Y total return vs TPVG's 93.3%
TPVG is the clearest fit if your priority is quality and momentum.
- Efficiency ratio 0.1% vs SAR's 0.7% (lower = leaner)
- +19.3% vs SAR's +3.7%
- Efficiency ratio 0.1% vs SAR's 0.7%
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 1.3K% NII/revenue growth vs TPVG's 36.6% | |
| Value | PEG 0.76 vs 6.41 | |
| Quality / Margins | Efficiency ratio 0.1% vs SAR's 0.7% (lower = leaner) | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.60 vs TPVG's 0.83 | |
| Dividends | 100.0% yield, 5-year raise streak, vs TPVG's 17.1% | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +19.3% vs SAR's +3.7% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | Efficiency ratio 0.1% vs SAR's 0.7% |
SAR vs TPVG — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 2 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
TPVG leads this category, winning 2 of 3 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
SAR is the larger business by revenue, generating $125.7B annually — 1293.2x TPVG's $97M.
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $125.7B | $97M |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $1.1B | -$22M |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | $39M | -$12M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | -$124.6B | $35M |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | — | +83.5% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | -0.1% | +77.9% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | — | +50.6% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | -70.0% | -58.7% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | — | — |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +13.1% | -2.3% |
Valuation Metrics
Evenly matched — SAR and TPVG each lead in 2 of 4 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 4.9x trailing earnings, TPVG trades at a 49% valuation discount to SAR's 9.7x P/E. Adjusting for growth (PEG ratio), SAR offers better value at 0.82x vs TPVG's 4.84x — a lower PEG means you pay less per unit of expected earnings growth.
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $363M | $243M |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $271.4B | $691M |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | 9.67x | 4.91x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | 9.00x | 6.50x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | 0.82x | 4.84x |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | — | 9.13x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 0.00x | 2.50x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | — | 0.68x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | — | — |
Profitability & Efficiency
TPVG leads this category, winning 5 of 7 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), TPVG scores 5/9 vs SAR's 1/9, reflecting solid financial health.
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | — | -3.4% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | +0.0% | -1.5% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | -0.1% | +7.2% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | -0.3% | +9.4% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 1 | 5 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | — | 1.33x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $271.0B | $449M |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $22.3B | $20M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $293.3B | $469M |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | -0.01x | -1.02x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
SAR leads this category, winning 5 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in SAR five years ago would be worth $14,249 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $8,649 for TPVG. Over the past 12 months, TPVG leads with a +19.3% total return vs SAR's +3.7%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors SAR at 8.6% vs TPVG's -1.2% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | +1.8% | -6.3% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | +3.7% | +19.3% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +28.0% | -3.4% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +42.5% | -13.5% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +183.2% | +93.3% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | +8.6% | -1.2% |
Risk & Volatility
SAR leads this category, winning 2 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
SAR is the less volatile stock with a 0.60 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than TPVG's 0.83 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. SAR currently trades 87.1% from its 52-week high vs TPVG's 79.5% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 0.60x | 0.83x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $25.64 | $7.53 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $20.78 | $4.48 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +87.1% | +79.5% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 46.8 | 58.3 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 125K | 504K |
Analyst Outlook
SAR leads this category, winning 2 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Wall Street rates SAR as "Hold" and TPVG as "Hold". For income investors, SAR offers the higher dividend yield at 100.00% vs TPVG's 17.11%.
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Hold | Hold |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | — | $8.95 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 11 | 12 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | +100.0% | +17.1% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 5 | 0 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | $3303.17 | $1.02 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | +14.9% | 0.0% |
SAR leads in 3 of 6 categories (Total Returns, Risk & Volatility). TPVG leads in 2 (Income & Cash Flow, Profitability & Efficiency). 1 tied.
SAR vs TPVG: Frequently Asked Questions
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is SAR or TPVG a better buy right now?
For growth investors, Saratoga Investment Corp.
(SAR) is the stronger pick with 1334% revenue growth year-over-year, versus 36. 6% for TriplePoint Venture Growth BDC Corp. (TPVG). TriplePoint Venture Growth BDC Corp. (TPVG) offers the better valuation at 4. 9x trailing P/E (6. 5x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Saratoga Investment Corp. (SAR) a "Hold" — based on 11 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 — SAR or TPVG?
On trailing P/E, TriplePoint Venture Growth BDC Corp.
(TPVG) is the cheapest at 4. 9x versus Saratoga Investment Corp. at 9. 7x. On forward P/E, TriplePoint Venture Growth BDC Corp. is actually cheaper at 6. 5x. The PEG ratio (P/E divided by earnings growth rate) is the most growth-adjusted single valuation metric: Saratoga Investment Corp. wins at 0. 76x 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 — SAR or TPVG?
Over the past 5 years, Saratoga Investment Corp.
(SAR) delivered a total return of +42. 5%, compared to -13. 5% for TriplePoint Venture Growth BDC Corp. (TPVG). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: SAR returned +183. 2% versus TPVG's +93. 3%. 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 — SAR or TPVG?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Saratoga Investment Corp.
(SAR) is the lower-risk stock at 0. 60β versus TriplePoint Venture Growth BDC Corp. 's 0. 83β — meaning TPVG is approximately 39% more volatile than SAR relative to the S&P 500.
05Which is growing faster — SAR or TPVG?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), Saratoga Investment Corp.
(SAR) is pulling ahead at 1334% versus 36. 6% for TriplePoint Venture Growth BDC Corp. (TPVG). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: TriplePoint Venture Growth BDC Corp. grew EPS 48. 8% year-over-year, compared to 14. 4% for Saratoga Investment Corp.. 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 — SAR or TPVG?
TriplePoint Venture Growth BDC Corp.
(TPVG) is the more profitable company, earning 50. 6% net margin versus 0. 0% for Saratoga Investment Corp. — 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 -0. 1% for SAR. 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 SAR or TPVG 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, Saratoga Investment Corp. (SAR) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 0. 76x 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, TriplePoint Venture Growth BDC Corp. (TPVG) trades at 6. 5x forward P/E versus 9. 0x for Saratoga Investment Corp. — 2. 5x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis.
08Which pays a better dividend — SAR or TPVG?
All stocks in this comparison pay dividends.
Saratoga Investment Corp. (SAR) offers the highest yield at 100. 0%, versus 17. 1% for TriplePoint Venture Growth BDC Corp. (TPVG).
09Is SAR or TPVG better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, Saratoga Investment Corp.
(SAR) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0. 60), 100. 0% yield, +183. 2% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (SAR: +183. 2%, TPVG: +93. 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.
10What are the main differences between SAR and TPVG?
Both stocks operate in the Financial Services sector, making this a peer-level intra-sector comparison — the same macro tailwinds and headwinds will affect both.
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 both.
- Sector: Financial Services
- Market Cap > $100B
- Revenue Growth > 66702%
- Dividend Yield > 40.0%
You Might Also Compare
Based on how these companies actually compete and overlap — not just which sector they're filed under.