AppLovin vs Trade Desk
APP and TTD side by side, both in computer programming, data processing, and other computer related services. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How APP and TTD compare
AppLovin is the larger company, worth 13 times as much as Trade Desk ($76.5B against $5.8B).
On earnings, Trade Desk is cheaper: it trades at 14.6× trailing earnings, against 17.6× for AppLovin.
AppLovin grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (60.6% versus 11.6% for Trade Desk).
AppLovin keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 64.6% compared with 13.6% at Trade Desk.
Trade Desk scores higher on the StockData Score (19 against 17 for AppLovin), which adds up 30 checks on valuation, growth, past performance, financial health and dividends.
Key numbers
A dot marks the better figure where higher or lower is clearly better.
| Metric | APP | TTD |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $76.5B | $5.8B |
| Share price | $228.50 | $12.29 |
| Change, 1 year | −63.8% | −75.4% |
| Change, 5 years | 132% | −82.1% |
| Beta (5Y) | 2.60 | 1.57 |
| Employees | 898 | 3,843 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 17 | 19 (better) |
| Valuation score | 5 | 6 (better) |
| Growth score | 3 | 3 |
| Performance score | 5 | 5 |
| Health score | 4 | 5 (better) |
| Dividend score | 0 | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 17.6× | 14.6× (better) |
| P/S | 11.2× | 1.9× (better) |
| P/B | 24.2× | 2.2× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 14.2× | 6.0× (better) |
| P/FCF | – | 6.7× |
| PEG | – | 0.14 |
| FCF yield | – | 14.9% |
| Fair value | $486.55 | $43.99 |
| Margin of safety | 53.0% | 72.1% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 60.6% (better) | 11.6% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 30.4% (better) | 28.2% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 81.5% (better) | −2.5% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 84.8% (better) | 1.2% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | – | 12.9% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 88.5% (better) | 76.9% |
| Operating margin | 77.4% (better) | 19.6% |
| Net margin | 64.6% (better) | 13.6% |
| FCF margin | – | 28.9% |
| Return on equity | 204% (better) | 15.4% |
| Return on invested capital | 126% (better) | 35.4% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 1.11 (better) | 0.00 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 0.09 | – |
| Interest coverage | 26.6× | 278× (better) |
| Current ratio | 4.30 (better) | 1.72 |
| Altman Z-score | 12.97 (better) | 2.19 |
| Piotroski F-score | 9 (better) | 6 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Buyback yield | 3.2% | 16.9% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 3.2% | 16.9% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 67.7% | 80.8% |
| Held by insiders | 78.3% | 12.3% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$574M | $142M (better) |
| Superinvestors holding | 8 (better) | 1 |
| Short interest, % of float | 16.0% | 20.4% |
Go deeper
- APP stock overview
- APP income statement
- APP valuation and score
- TTD stock overview
- TTD income statement
- TTD valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.