AMG vs IVZ

For growth investors, Affiliated Managers Group, Inc.

(AMG) is the stronger pick with 19. 8% revenue growth year-over-year, versus 5. 1% for Invesco Ltd. (IVZ). Affiliated Managers Group, Inc. (AMG) offers the better valuation at 13. 4x trailing P/E (9. 2x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Affiliated Managers Group, Inc. (AMG) a "Buy" — based on 12 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 forward P/E, Affiliated Managers Group, Inc.

is actually cheaper at 9. 2x.

Over the past 5 years, Affiliated Managers Group, Inc.

(AMG) delivered a total return of +80. 2%, compared to +10. 9% for Invesco Ltd. (IVZ). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: AMG returned +89. 1% versus IVZ's +22. 4%. 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), Affiliated Managers Group, Inc.

(AMG) is the lower-risk stock at 1. 14β versus Invesco Ltd. 's 1. 67β — meaning IVZ is approximately 47% more volatile than AMG relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Affiliated Managers Group, Inc. (AMG) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 61% versus 78% for Invesco Ltd. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.

By revenue growth (latest reported year), Affiliated Managers Group, Inc.

(AMG) is pulling ahead at 19. 8% versus 5. 1% for Invesco Ltd. (IVZ). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Affiliated Managers Group, Inc. grew EPS 50. 3% year-over-year, compared to -235. 6% for Invesco Ltd.. 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.

Affiliated Managers Group, Inc.

(AMG) is the more profitable company, earning 29. 3% net margin versus -4. 4% for Invesco Ltd. — meaning it keeps 29. 3% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: AMG leads at 31. 8% versus -10. 9% for IVZ. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — AMG leads at 86. 0%, 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.

On forward earnings alone, Affiliated Managers Group, Inc.

(AMG) trades at 9. 2x forward P/E versus 10. 4x for Invesco Ltd. — 1. 3x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for IVZ: 10. 8% to $29. 72.

In this comparison, IVZ (3.

1% yield) pays a dividend. AMG does not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.

For long-horizon retirement investors, Affiliated Managers Group, Inc.

(AMG) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 1. 14)). Invesco Ltd. (IVZ) carries a higher beta of 1. 67 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (AMG: +89. 1%, IVZ: +22. 4%), 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.

In terms of investment character: AMG is a small-cap high-growth stock; IVZ is a mid-cap income-oriented stock. IVZ pays a dividend while AMG does 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.