Advertising Agencies
Compare Stocks
5 / 10Stock Comparison
STGW vs IPG vs OMC vs WPP vs HYFM
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Advertising Agencies
Advertising Agencies
Advertising Agencies
Agricultural - Machinery
STGW vs IPG vs OMC vs WPP vs HYFM — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Advertising Agencies | Advertising Agencies | Advertising Agencies | Advertising Agencies | Agricultural - Machinery |
| Market Cap | $1.64B | $8.93B | $23.87B | $4.05B | $5M |
| Revenue (TTM) | $2.96B | $10.21B | $19.82B | $29.03B | $146M |
| Net Income (TTM) | $19M | $552M | $63M | $584M | $-65M |
| Gross Margin | 34.6% | 18.2% | 16.8% | 16.3% | 10.2% |
| Operating Margin | 5.1% | 9.7% | 13.7% | 6.7% | -35.8% |
| Forward P/E | 6.2x | 7.8x | 7.2x | 7.5x | — |
| Total Debt | $1.61B | $4.25B | $12.78B | $6.35B | $170M |
| Cash & Equiv. | $105M | $2.19B | $6.88B | $2.64B | $26M |
STGW vs IPG vs OMC vs WPP vs HYFM — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | Dec 20 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stagwell Inc. (STGW) | 100 | 257.4 | +157.4% |
| The Interpublic Gro… (IPG) | 100 | 109.1 | +9.1% |
| Omnicom Group Inc. (OMC) | 100 | 123.3 | +23.3% |
| WPP plc (WPP) | 100 | 34.7 | -65.3% |
| Hydrofarm Holdings … (HYFM) | 100 | 0.2 | -99.8% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: STGW vs IPG vs OMC vs WPP vs HYFM
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
STGW is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if growth exposure is your priority.
- Rev growth 2.4%, EPS growth 464.1%, 3Y rev CAGR 2.7%
- Better valuation composite
- +11.2% vs HYFM's -75.4%
IPG carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for income & stability and long-term compounding.
- Dividend streak 16 yrs, beta 0.65, yield 5.4%
- 45.7% 10Y total return vs OMC's 23.5%
- Beta 0.65, yield 5.4%, current ratio 1.09x
- 5.4% margin vs HYFM's -44.5%
OMC ranks third and is worth considering specifically for sleep-well-at-night.
- Lower volatility, beta 0.60, Low D/E 97.9%, current ratio 0.93x
- 10.1% revenue growth vs HYFM's -16.0%
- Beta 0.60 vs STGW's 1.17, lower leverage
WPP lags the leaders in this set but could rank higher in a more targeted comparison.
Among these 5 stocks, HYFM doesn't own a clear edge in any measured category.
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 0.60 vs STGW's 1.17, lower leverage | |
| Dividends | 5.4% yield, 16-year raise streak, vs WPP's 14.0%, (2 stocks pay no dividend) | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +11.2% vs HYFM's -75.4% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 3.2% ROA vs HYFM's -16.3%, ROIC 14.7% vs -9.6% |
STGW vs IPG vs OMC vs WPP vs HYFM — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
Segment breakdown not available.
STGW vs IPG vs OMC vs WPP vs HYFM — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 5 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
OMC leads in 2 of 6 categories
IPG leads 1 • STGW leads 1 • WPP leads 0 • HYFM 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 | $3.0B | $10.2B | $19.8B | $29.0B | $146M |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $358M | $1.2B | $3.1B | $2.6B | -$23M |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | $19M | $552M | $63M | $584M | -$65M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | $275M | $807M | $3.0B | $1.7B | -$8M |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +34.6% | +18.2% | +16.8% | +16.3% | +10.2% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | +5.1% | +9.7% | +13.7% | +6.7% | -35.8% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | +0.6% | +5.4% | +0.3% | +2.0% | -44.5% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | +9.3% | +7.9% | +15.1% | +5.9% | -5.7% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +8.0% | -5.1% | +69.2% | -7.8% | -33.3% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -29.3% | +5.4% | +40.7% | -78.9% | -22.7% |
Valuation Metrics
Evenly matched — WPP and HYFM each lead in 2 of 6 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 5.6x trailing earnings, WPP trades at a 90% valuation discount to STGW's 58.7x 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 | $1.6B | $8.9B | $23.9B | $4.0B | $5M |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $3.1B | $11.0B | $29.8B | $9.1B | $148M |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | 58.73x | 13.43x | -284.89x | 5.63x | -0.07x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | 6.18x | 7.78x | 7.24x | 7.48x | — |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | 7.78x | — | — | — |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 7.89x | 7.52x | 10.40x | 3.68x | — |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 0.56x | 0.83x | 1.38x | 0.20x | 0.03x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 2.13x | 2.37x | 1.21x | 0.81x | 0.02x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | 6.62x | 9.77x | 8.56x | 2.54x | — |
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. HYFM carries lower financial leverage with a 0.76x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to STGW's 2.00x. 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 | +2.5% | +14.6% | +0.7% | +17.1% | -32.3% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | +0.4% | +3.2% | +0.2% | +2.5% | -16.3% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | +5.2% | +14.7% | +14.5% | +12.5% | -9.6% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | +6.0% | +13.7% | +13.5% | +13.0% | -12.1% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 6 | 8 | 2 | 7 | 3 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 2.00x | 1.09x | 0.98x | 1.70x | 0.76x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $1.5B | $2.1B | $5.9B | $3.7B | $143M |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $105M | $2.2B | $6.9B | $2.6B | $26M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $1.6B | $4.3B | $12.8B | $6.3B | $170M |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | 1.52x | 4.90x | 2.51x | 2.37x | -3.77x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
STGW leads this category, winning 5 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in STGW five years ago would be worth $13,184 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $16 for HYFM. Over the past 12 months, STGW leads with a +11.2% total return vs HYFM's -75.4%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors STGW at 3.4% vs HYFM's -56.8% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | +36.6% | — | -4.4% | -18.2% | -35.0% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | +11.2% | +1.0% | +5.3% | -46.1% | -75.4% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +10.6% | -23.0% | -7.0% | -54.3% | -91.9% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +31.8% | -10.1% | +7.2% | -57.1% | -99.8% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -60.6% | +45.7% | +23.5% | -59.0% | -99.8% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | +3.4% | -8.4% | -2.4% | -23.0% | -56.8% |
Risk & Volatility
OMC leads this category, winning 2 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
OMC is the less volatile stock with a 0.60 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than STGW's 1.17 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. OMC currently trades 88.2% from its 52-week high vs HYFM's 21.8% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 1.17x | 0.65x | 0.60x | 1.08x | 0.91x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $7.52 | $28.42 | $87.17 | $40.95 | $4.78 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $4.03 | $22.55 | $66.33 | $14.81 | $0.81 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +85.9% | +86.5% | +88.2% | +45.8% | +21.8% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 47.8 | 45.1 | 50.1 | 63.3 | 54.8 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 1.7M | 81.3M | 4.3M | 616K | 41K |
Analyst Outlook
Evenly matched — IPG and WPP each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: STGW as "Buy", IPG as "Hold", OMC as "Hold", WPP as "Hold". Consensus price targets imply 48.8% upside for IPG (target: $37) vs 21.8% for OMC (target: $94). For income investors, WPP offers the higher dividend yield at 14.05% vs OMC's 3.49%.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Buy | Hold | Hold | Hold | — |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $8.00 | $36.57 | $93.67 | — | — |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 8 | 34 | 34 | 13 | — |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | — | +5.4% | +3.5% | +14.0% | — |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 3 | 16 | 0 | 4 | 1 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | — | $1.31 | $2.68 | $1.94 | — |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | +8.2% | +2.6% | +3.0% | +2.8% | 0.0% |
OMC leads in 2 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow, Risk & Volatility). IPG leads in 1 (Profitability & Efficiency). 2 tied.
STGW vs IPG vs OMC vs WPP vs HYFM: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is STGW or IPG or OMC or WPP or HYFM 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. 6x trailing P/E (7. 5x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Stagwell Inc. (STGW) a "Buy" — based on 8 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 — STGW or IPG or OMC or WPP or HYFM?
On trailing P/E, WPP plc (WPP) is the cheapest at 5.
6x versus Stagwell Inc. at 58. 7x. On forward P/E, Stagwell Inc. is actually cheaper at 6. 2x — notably different from the trailing picture, reflecting expected earnings growth.
03Which is the better long-term investment — STGW or IPG or OMC or WPP or HYFM?
Over the past 5 years, Stagwell Inc.
(STGW) delivered a total return of +31. 8%, 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 — STGW or IPG or OMC or WPP or HYFM?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Omnicom Group Inc.
(OMC) is the lower-risk stock at 0. 60β versus Stagwell Inc. 's 1. 17β — meaning STGW is approximately 95% more volatile than OMC relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Hydrofarm Holdings Group, Inc. (HYFM) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 76% versus 2% for Stagwell Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — STGW or IPG or OMC or WPP or HYFM?
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: Stagwell Inc. grew EPS 464. 1% 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 — STGW or IPG or OMC or WPP or HYFM?
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 — STGW leads at 36. 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 STGW or IPG or OMC or WPP or HYFM more undervalued right now?
On forward earnings alone, Stagwell Inc.
(STGW) trades at 6. 2x forward P/E versus 7. 8x for The Interpublic Group of Companies, Inc. — 1. 6x 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 — STGW or IPG or OMC or WPP or HYFM?
In this comparison, WPP (14.
0% yield), IPG (5. 4% yield), OMC (3. 5% yield) pay a dividend. STGW, HYFM do not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
09Is STGW or IPG or OMC or WPP or HYFM 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. 60), 3. 5% yield). Both have compounded well over 10 years (OMC: +23. 5%, STGW: -60. 6%), 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 STGW and IPG and OMC and WPP and HYFM?
These companies operate in different sectors (STGW (Communication Services) and IPG (Communication Services) and OMC (Communication Services) and WPP (Communication Services) and HYFM (Industrials)), which means they face different economic cycles, regulatory environments, and macro sensitivities — making direct comparison nuanced.
In terms of investment character: STGW is a small-cap quality compounder stock; IPG is a small-cap deep-value stock; OMC is a mid-cap income-oriented stock; WPP is a small-cap deep-value stock; HYFM is a small-cap quality compounder stock. IPG, OMC, WPP pay a dividend while STGW, HYFM 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 > 5%
- Gross Margin > 20%
- 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.