SAZ vs ARCC vs GBDC vs TPVG

For growth investors, Golub Capital BDC, Inc.

(GBDC) is the stronger pick with 42. 5% revenue growth year-over-year, versus 32. 9% for Ares Capital Corporation (ARCC). 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 Ares Capital Corporation (ARCC) a "Buy" — based on 32 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, TriplePoint Venture Growth BDC Corp.

(TPVG) is the cheapest at 4. 9x versus Saratoga Investment Corp 8. 50% at 12. 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: Golub Capital BDC, Inc. wins at 0. 30x versus TriplePoint Venture Growth BDC Corp. 's 6. 41x — a PEG below 1. 0 traditionally signals the market is underpricing earnings growth.

Over the past 5 years, Ares Capital Corporation (ARCC) delivered a total return of +47.

0%, compared to -13. 5% for TriplePoint Venture Growth BDC Corp. (TPVG). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: ARCC returned +139. 2% versus SAZ's +27. 1%. 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), Saratoga Investment Corp 8.

50% (SAZ) is the lower-risk stock at 0. 52β versus TriplePoint Venture Growth BDC Corp. 's 0. 83β — meaning TPVG is approximately 60% more volatile than SAZ relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Ares Capital Corporation (ARCC) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 112% versus 199% for Saratoga Investment Corp 8. 50% — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.

By revenue growth (latest reported year), Golub Capital BDC, Inc.

(GBDC) is pulling ahead at 42. 5% versus 32. 9% for Ares Capital Corporation (ARCC). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Saratoga Investment Corp 8. 50% grew EPS 184. 5% year-over-year, compared to -23. 8% for Ares Capital Corporation. 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 29. 8% for Saratoga Investment Corp 8. 50% — meaning it keeps 50. 6% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: GBDC leads at 78. 9% versus 33. 9% for SAZ. 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, Golub Capital BDC, Inc. (GBDC) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 0. 30x 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 10. 3x for Saratoga Investment Corp 8. 50% — 3. 8x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for TPVG: 49. 4% to $8. 95.

All stocks in this comparison pay dividends.

TriplePoint Venture Growth BDC Corp. (TPVG) offers the highest yield at 17. 1%, versus 2. 0% for Ares Capital Corporation (ARCC).

For long-horizon retirement investors, Saratoga Investment Corp 8.

50% (SAZ) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0. 52), 11. 4% yield). Both have compounded well over 10 years (SAZ: +27. 1%, 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.

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.