For AI assistants & researchers — machine-readable summary of this page
What this page is: Delvantic's full research page for DoubleVerify Holdings Inc. (DV) — AI-driven forensic equity research: mechanical valuation models (DCF, EPV, anchored-PE, scenario) plus three independent AI lenses (Quality / Value / Sentiment). Everything below is rendered server-side; you are not missing content that requires JavaScript. All scores are predictions and research opinions, not financial advice.
Our current read (analysis of 2026-08-23): Designation Watch · Gem Score +12 (−100…+100 Quality+Value blend) · Quality 33 · Value -6 · Sentiment -16 (timing only, not weighted) · Composite fair value $10.45 vs $11.76 at analysis
Page map (sections in order; each card carries a stable
reference-name attribute you can cite):
profile-header/price-overview— company profile, live quote, market capextended-analysis— the core: three AI lens reads with findings, scores, and the analyst memofuture-predictions— our forward price-band predictionsmarket-narrative/ai-findings/gpt-critique— narrative context, cross-model findings, and an adversarial critique of our own analysis (near the end of the document)- Members-only sections (render as login gates for anonymous readers):
price-history,income-trend,key-metrics,financials(statement tables),insider-trading. The analysis above is public; the raw data tables require a free account.
More for machine readers: site briefing at
/llms.txt ·
any ticker resolves at delvantic.com/stock/TICKER ·
raw inputs are public-company filings and market data (via licensed data feeds);
every model, score, lens read, and prediction on this page is Delvantic's own analysis.
DoubleVerify Holdings Inc.
DV NYSEDoubleVerify Holdings Inc. operates as a technology company that provides digital media measurement, data, and analytics solutions globally. Its primary function is to ensure the effectiveness and integrity of digital advertising campaigns. The company offers comprehensive solutions that enable advertisers to improve their return on digital media investments by ensuring that ads are properly displayed, viewable by intended audiences, and free from fraud. DoubleVerify's platform is trusted across multiple sectors including media, retail, and technology, enhancing transparency and accountability in advertising processes. The company plays a significant role in the digital advertising ecosystem by helping brands and agencies achieve greater clarity on the performance of their ad campaigns. With the increasing complexity and fragmentation of the digital media landscape, DoubleVerify Holdings Inc. provides essential tools for managing advertising quality, proving indispensable for companies looking to optimize their digital marketing efforts and secure better engagement outcomes. Headquartered in New York, DoubleVerify has established itself as a market leader in protecting brand reputation and maximizing the impact of digital advertising spend.
Price Overview
Price History (1 Year)
Revenue & Net Income Trend
| Period | Revenue | Net Income | Net Margin | YoY/QoQ |
|---|
Key Metrics
EPS (Diluted): 0.30
Total Equity: $1.13B
Shares: 166,683,000
Total Debt: $0.00
Cash: $259.04M
EBITDA: $135.78M
Total Debt: $0.00
Cash: $259.04M
Revenue: $748.29M
Revenue: $748.29M
Revenue: $748.29M
Total Equity: $1.13B
Tax Rate: 38.8%
Equity: $1.13B
Total Debt: $0.00
Cash: $259.04M
Current Liabilities: $121.56M
Long-Term Debt: $0.00
Total Debt: $0.00
Total Equity: $1.13B
Shares: 166,683,000
Shares: 166,683,000
CapEx: -$38.53M
Shares: 166,683,000
Stock Price: $11.76
Net Income: $50.65M
Industry Benchmarks
Income Statement (Annual)
Last updated: Aug 3, 2026 5:34pm (20d ago)| Metric | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $332.7M | $452.4M | $572.5M | $656.8M | $748.3M |
| Cost of Revenue | $54.4M | $77.9M | $106.6M | $116.5M | $133.5M |
| Gross Profit | $278.4M | $374.6M | $465.9M | $540.3M | $614.8M |
| Operating Expenses | $251.7M | $315.5M | $380.2M | $457.9M | $535.6M |
| Operating Income | $26.7M | $59.0M | $85.7M | $82.4M | $79.2M |
| Net Income | $29.3M | $43.3M | $71.5M | $56.2M | $50.7M |
| EBITDA | $57.0M | $93.4M | $126.6M | $127.6M | $135.8M |
| EPS | $0.20 | $0.26 | $0.43 | $0.33 | $0.31 |
| EPS (Diluted) | $0.18 | $0.25 | $0.41 | $0.32 | $0.30 |
Balance Sheet (Annual)
Last updated: Aug 3, 2026 5:08pm (20d ago)| Metric | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cash & Equivalents | $221.6M | $267.8M | $310.1M | $292.8M | $259.0M |
| Total Current Assets | $367.8M | $445.1M | $533.0M | $559.1M | $519.3M |
| Total Assets | $892.2M | $1.0B | $1.2B | $1.3B | $1.4B |
| Current Liabilities | $57.0M | $68.9M | $83.9M | $103.5M | $121.6M |
| Long-Term Debt | — | — | — | — | — |
| Total Liabilities | $93.1M | $160.2M | $169.1M | $192.8M | $222.8M |
| Total Equity | $799.1M | $876.9M | $1.1B | $1.1B | $1.1B |
| Retained Earnings | $84.2M | $127.5M | $199.0M | $255.2M | $305.9M |
Cash Flow (Annual)
Last updated: Aug 3, 2026 5:34pm (20d ago)| Metric | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Operating Cash Flow | $82.7M | $94.9M | $119.7M | $159.7M | $211.2M |
| Capital Expenditure | -$9.4M | -$40.0M | -$17.0M | -$27.1M | -$38.5M |
| Free Cash Flow | $73.4M | $54.9M | $102.7M | $132.5M | $172.7M |
| Acquisitions (net) | -$149.2M | — | -$67.2M | — | -$82.6M |
| Net Debt Issued / (Repaid) | -$22.0M | — | — | — | — |
| Dividends Paid | — | — | — | — | — |
| Stock Buybacks | -$1.8M | -$10.2M | -$4.6M | -$128.0M | -$132.3M |
| Net Change in Cash | $188.3M | $46.2M | $42.3M | -$16.5M | -$33.7M |
Growth Trends (YoY %)
Last updated: Aug 3, 2026 5:34pm (20d ago)| Metric | 2022 | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue Growth | +36.0% | +26.6% | +14.7% | +13.9% |
| Gross Profit Growth | +34.6% | +24.4% | +16.0% | +13.8% |
| Operating Income Growth | +121.2% | +45.2% | -3.9% | -3.9% |
| Net Income Growth | +47.6% | +65.2% | -21.3% | -9.9% |
| EBITDA Growth | +63.9% | +35.6% | +0.8% | +6.4% |
Deep Analysis
Risk : Reward — if the last quarter repeats
Live · as of 2026-08-19 08:49Even the bull case prices 45% below today — the ratio here measures the model-vs-market gap, not payoff odds. Another quarter like the worst recent one costs 70%.
| Case | Growth | Margin | Fair value | vs price ($11.76) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bull — recovery | +17% | 9.2% | $6.46 | -45% |
| Base — stabilizes | +11% | 8.0% | $4.81 | -59% |
| Bear — keeps slipping | +6% | 6.8% | $3.51 | -70% |
| Stress — last quarter repeats | +11% | 5.7% | $3.57 | -70% |
Narrative Economics
market-narrative step).
Claude Reading
The raw numbers tell a more nuanced story than either the "slight upside" synthesis or the "market headwinds" doom call. Revenue is still growing — TTM through Q1'26 runs ~$764M vs ~$656.8M in 2024, roughly +16%, and the Q1'26 print of $180.8M is +9.5% YoY against a $165.1M comp. But earnings are the tell: NI has gone from $71.5M (2023) → $56.2M (2024) → $50.7M (2025), a 29% decline over two years while revenue grew 31%. Operating margin has compressed from 15.0% in 2023 to 10.6% in 2025, and Q1'26's 3.5% net margin (vs 1.4% prior-year Q1, so directionally better) still shows the business is spending aggressively — likely on the Rockerbox/Scibids acquisitions and sales capacity — without proportional operating leverage. That is not a "mature earner"; that's a scaled growth company burning margin to defend share.
The valuation math is not screaming cheap. At $11.76 and ~$172M FCF, that's a 9.6% FCF yield on a ~$1.54B EV (market cap $1.80B less $259M cash, no debt) — cheap for software, but FCF benefits from stock-based comp addback that ROE of 4.5% and ROIC of 5.6% confirm is real dilution economics. P/E of 39x on declining earnings is not a bargain; EV/EBITDA of 12x is defensible only if margins stabilize. The insider activity — all option exercises and F-InKind (tax withholding) with zero open-market buys — is neutral-to-mildly-negative; nobody is stepping up at $11.76 despite the stock being 30% off highs. That's information.
The prior models contradict each other sharply and I lean toward partial dissent from all of them. The Market Forces "deteriorating business, unsustainable unit economics, existential disruption" call is overwrought — 82% gross margins, $172M FCF, no debt, and 14%+ revenue growth is not existential distress; it's a growth-to-GARP transition. The Valuation Synthesis's $12.38 fair value is suspiciously close to spot and reads like the composite is anchoring to price rather than deriving from it. The Narrative layer's "fundamentals-anchored, no cult premium" read is the most honest — this is a math problem, not a story problem. The Pre-Flight framing of "market pricing deceleration into mid-teens" is roughly right, but underweights that the real question isn't top-line — it's whether operating margins recover to the 15%+ zone or whether 10% is the new normal as IAS, Adobe/AI-native verification, and walled-garden in-housing compress pricing.
A contrarian bull would note: FCF CAGR of 29.6% vs revenue CAGR of 14.3% means cash generation is actually accelerating faster than the P&L suggests — the earnings decline is partly amortization of acquired intangibles and SBC weight, not cash burn. Rockerbox and Scibids expand DV beyond verification into performance measurement and AI-driven bidding, which is exactly the pivot needed if pure verification commoditizes. At 9x EV/FCF the downside is bounded assuming FCF holds. A contrarian bear would counter: Q1'26 net margin of 3.5% on the seasonally weakest quarter, combined with the Q4→Q1 sequential drop from $205.6M to $180.8M (normal seasonality but the deceleration in YoY growth from ~24% in Q1'25 to ~9.5% in Q1'26 is not) suggests the growth algorithm is breaking. If 2026 full-year comes in at $820M with 8% operating margin, you're looking at ~$65M op income and the multiple has to compress further. The data is also stale on one key axis: no visibility on 2026 guidance revisions or the impact of the Google cookie reversal on demand.
I dissent modestly from the "slight upside" synthesis and land closer to fairly valued with asymmetric downside if margins don't stabilize by 2H'26. Fair value is $11-13 based on 10x EV/FCF applied to a haircut $155M normalized FCF plus cash — essentially where it trades. The $12.38 signal-adjusted number is coincidentally right but for wrong reasons; there is no re-rating catalyst visible, insiders aren't buying, growth is decelerating, and the acquisition-driven revenue is masking organic softness. This is a name to own only if you have conviction that (a) Scibids/Rockerbox integration lifts 2027 margins back to 15%+, and (b) cookie-deprecation fears are overstated. Neither is obvious from this data. Wait for the Q2'26 print and specifically the organic-vs-acquired revenue split before committing.
GPT Reading
What stands out first is that DoubleVerify is still growing, but the quality of that growth is getting worse. Revenue rose from $656.8M in 2024 to $748.3M in 2025, up 13.9%, and the latest quarter at $180.8M was up 9.5% from $165.1M a year earlier. That is not broken. But profits are clearly not scaling with sales: operating income fell from $85.7M in 2023 to $82.4M in 2024 and then to $79.2M in 2025 despite revenue climbing 31% over that span. Net income has done the same, dropping from $71.5M in 2023 to $56.2M in 2024 and $50.7M in 2025. The recent quarterly margin pattern is especially weak for a business with 82% gross margins: 1.4%, 4.6%, 5.4%, 14.3%, then back to 3.5%. When a software-like business keeps adding revenue but cannot convert that into better operating leverage, I do not want to pay a premium earnings multiple for it.
The second thing the numbers say is that GAAP earnings understate economic output, but not enough to make the stock obviously cheap. On 2025 figures, $211.2M of operating cash flow and $172.7M of free cash flow versus just $50.7M of net income is a huge gap. Backing out the $259M cash pile from the $1.80B market cap implies about $1.54B enterprise value, so the stock trades around 8.9x trailing FCF and 2.1x revenue ex-cash. That is not expensive if the cash flow is durable. But you have to reconcile that with a 39x P/E, 4.5% ROE, and only 5.6% ROIC. The market is effectively saying this is a decent cash generator but not a great compounder, and I think that is right. The “mature earner” label fits better than the more optimistic software framing because this looks like a business with strong gross economics but rising cost to defend growth.
The balance sheet is a real support under the stock. No debt and $259M of cash give management room to absorb a cyclical ad market or make acquisitions, and a current ratio above 4x means no financial stress. That matters because at $11.76 the equity value is only about 10.4x trailing FCF if you ignore net cash, which is already a compressed multiple for a business still delivering high-single to low-teens top-line growth. So I do not see a disaster. I see a company that has likely been de-rated correctly from a growth-stock valuation into a cash-yield story. If revenues can only grow around 10%-14% while net margins sit in the mid-single digits, fair value is not much above today’s price. I would not chase a “slight upside” call when the operating trend is plainly worse than the cash flow trend.
The best case against my caution is straightforward: this stock may simply be misread if free cash flow is the right earnings measure. A debt-free business with $172.7M of FCF on a $1.80B market cap, 82.2% gross margins, and annual revenue growth from $332.7M in 2021 to $748.3M in 2025 has built a real franchise. Even the latest quarter’s 9.5% growth is respectable against a tougher base, and Q1 seasonality may flatter or depress margins less than full-year figures suggest. If the FCF conversion remains anywhere near 23% of revenue, then the stock is already priced like a no-growth business when it is still growing double digits. That is the smartest bull argument, and it is stronger than the rule-based and narrative layers imply. I weigh it less heavily because the deterioration in operating income over three consecutive annual periods tells me some of that cash generation may reflect working-capital dynamics or stock-comp-heavy accounting rather than clean underlying margin strength.
What would change my mind is simple. If the next few quarters show revenue re-accelerating back above 12%-15% year over year while operating margin moves back toward 12%-13% instead of living in the low-to-mid single digits, then the stock is too cheap here and deserves a mid-teens price again. Conversely, if 2026 revenue growth slips into single digits and full-year net income again trails the prior year despite the cash hoard and scale, then even 2.6x sales is not attractive and the stock should trade closer to 8x-9x FCF, roughly $10 or below. Right now the market is pricing the business about right: solid franchise, weak incremental economics.
Grok Reading
The raw numbers describe a high-gross-margin verification franchise whose top line is still expanding but whose economic engine is clearly downshifting. Revenue climbed from $332.7M in 2021 to $748.3M in 2025, yet the annual increments have compressed from +36% to +14.7% to +13.9%; the latest quarter (Q1 2026 at $180.8M) is only +9.5% versus the year-ago period, confirming the deceleration is ongoing. More troubling is the profit line: operating income has slipped three straight years ($85.7M → $82.4M → $79.2M) and net income has fallen from a 2023 peak of $71.5M to $50.7M, producing a –15.8% earnings CAGR even as free cash flow reached $172.7M (23% FCF margin) on only $38.5M of capex. The 82% gross margin remains pristine and the balance sheet is fortress-like ($259M cash, zero debt), but ROE of 4.5% and ROIC of 5.6% reveal a business that is no longer compounding capital at attractive rates. At $11.76 the stock trades at 39× trailing earnings—expensive for a shrinking bottom line—yet only 2.2× EV/revenue and roughly 9× EV/FCF, so the market is already discounting the growth fade while still paying up for the residual cash generation.
What stands out is the widening gap between cash conversion and reported profitability. Operating cash flow of $211M dwarfs net income, implying heavy non-cash charges or working-capital tailwinds that may not be permanent; seasonal Q4 spikes (margins 12–14%) mask thin single-digit margins in the other three quarters. The pre-flight claim of “20%+ CAGR” is already stale—trailing growth is mid-teens and heading lower—while the rule-based “mature earner” label fits the cash-flow profile but understates the margin erosion. Insider activity is pure option mechanics and tax withholds, offering no signal. In short, DoubleVerify is a still-growing cash machine whose unit economics and competitive moat are quietly fraying under cookie deprecation and platform in-housing pressure.
The strongest contrary case is that a debt-free compounder printing a 9.6% FCF yield at 12× EV/EBITDA with 82% gross margins cannot stay this cheap if mid-teens revenue growth simply stabilizes. A bull would note that the $1.8B market cap is only modestly above the $1.13B book value, that FCF has compounded at nearly 30%, and that any stabilization in operating margin back toward the 2023 level of 15% would make the current 39× P/E look absurdly low on forward earnings. That argument has force on pure cash-flow math; I weigh it less heavily because the three-year decline in both operating and net income is not a one-period aberration—it is the central trend—and because ROIC below 6% means every incremental dollar of growth is currently destroying rather than creating value. The market’s 30% drawdown from the $16.82 high already embeds a lot of that optimism; further multiple expansion requires evidence the profit slide has stopped.
I would reverse to a clear buy if the next two quarters show revenue re-accelerating above 15% year-over-year while operating margin expands back above 12%, or if management demonstrates that the FCF-to-NI gap is structural rather than cyclical. Conversely, a print of high-single-digit revenue growth paired with another year of lower operating income would confirm the derating is incomplete and push the stock toward single-digit EV/FCF territory.
Big-3 Panel — where each AI stands
Advanced Analysis Forensic deep-dive · separate lenses
DoubleVerify is a mature, self-funding software business: revenue compounded from $332.7M (2021) to $748.3M (2025), gross margins sit consistently in the 82-84% band, and FCF has stepped up cleanly to $172.7M. The balance sheet is essentially unlevered with $259M net cash and an Altman Z of 6.27; OCF/NI of 2.74x, negative accruals (-7% of assets), and a Beneish M of -3.04 all point to genuine, cash-backed earnings with no mechanical red flags. Dilution is contained: diluted share count actually declined from 175.1M to 166.7M in 2025, and buybacks have offset ~87% of SBC. That said, the operating trajectory is not as clean as the top line suggests. Operating margin peaked at 15% in 2023 and has fallen to 10.6% in 2025 even as revenue grew 14% — meaning opex is scaling faster than revenue. Net income actually declined from $71.5M (2023) to $50.7M (2025) despite $176M more revenue. SBC at 13.9% of revenue is heavy for a company already this large and is doing real economic work behind the GAAP numbers. Insider tape shows only option exercises and tax-withholding, no open-market buys or sells — neutral signal. This is a solidly healthy business with no survival questions, but the deceleration in operating leverage keeps it out of the top tier.
Verify before trusting this (5)
- What is driving the opex growth outpacing revenue in 2024-2025 — sales headcount, R&D, or one-time items?
- Customer concentration disclosure in the 10-K — how exposed is DV to a handful of large platforms/agencies?
- Competitive positioning vs Integral Ad Science and in-platform verification from Google/Meta/TikTok
- Organic vs acquired revenue growth — has M&A (e.g. Scibids) inflated the top line while dragging margins?
- Nature and terms of the 2025 buyback that shrank share count — was it opportunistic or programmatic?
The e2e composite fair value is $12.06 and the signal-adjusted FV is $12.38 against a $11.76 price - a 3-5% gap that is noise, not opportunity. The three methods disagree meaningfully: DCF says $18.34, EPV floor says $5.02, and anchored PE says $6.53. That spread tells you the answer depends entirely on whether you believe the growth-compounder narrative or the mature-infrastructure-vendor narrative; the composite splitting the difference near spot is the honest read.
Verify before trusting this (4)
- Whether the operating margin slide is cyclical (ad-market weakness) or structural (AI/consolidation pressure) - changes DCF terminal assumptions materially
- SBC run-rate vs buyback pace - whether share count discipline holds
- Segment-level growth: activation vs measurement mix and any customer concentration disclosures
- Forward revenue guide vs the growth rate embedded in the $18 DCF
DoubleVerify sits in a rare sentiment vacuum: narrative intensity is minimal, cult coefficient low, and the story is a mundane 'ad-verification plumbing' pitch that neither excites nor terrifies the tape. With a beta of 0.96 and a communication-services / adtech tag, it should track the market roughly one-for-one, and the market itself is only mildly constructive (regime score +22, VIX 16, S&P a hair off highs). Nothing in the news flow is pushing this name hard - the only recent item is a valuation-math piece flagging it as ~14% below fair value, which is a mild sentiment positive but hardly a catalyst.
Verify before trusting this (4)
- Any acceleration or fresh disruption headline in AI-driven ad verification that could revive the bear narrative
- Sell-side target revisions or downgrades after the next print - the current tone is quiet and could tip either way
- Sector rotation into or out of adtech / small-mid cap communication services
- VIX breakout above 20 which would disproportionately hit lower-liquidity names like DV
This lens hasn't been run for this ticker yet.
When we made this prediction on Aug 4, 2026, DV was $11.75. We expect it to be $13.15 by Feb 2027, and we consider it great value under $9.25. This is an early model (v0.6.0) — the direction is more reliable than the exact price. Made Aug 4, 2026.
Blue is our prediction, starting the day we made it. Grey is a slower route to the same place — the same destination, taking longer. Black is the actual price, so you can see how we are doing.