MGM vs LVS

For growth investors, Las Vegas Sands Corp.

(LVS) is the stronger pick with 15. 2% revenue growth year-over-year, versus 1. 7% for MGM Resorts International (MGM). Las Vegas Sands Corp. (LVS) offers the better valuation at 22. 6x trailing P/E (16. 0x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate MGM Resorts International (MGM) a "Buy" — based on 36 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, Las Vegas Sands Corp.

(LVS) is the cheapest at 22. 6x versus MGM Resorts International at 50. 3x. On forward P/E, Las Vegas Sands Corp. is actually cheaper at 16. 0x.

Over the past 5 years, MGM Resorts International (MGM) delivered a total return of -1.

8%, compared to -2. 2% for Las Vegas Sands Corp. (LVS). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: MGM returned +81. 0% versus LVS's +49. 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), Las Vegas Sands Corp.

(LVS) is the lower-risk stock at 1. 09β versus MGM Resorts International's 1. 28β — meaning MGM is approximately 17% more volatile than LVS relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Las Vegas Sands Corp. (LVS) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 8% versus 17% for MGM Resorts International — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.

By revenue growth (latest reported year), Las Vegas Sands Corp.

(LVS) is pulling ahead at 15. 2% versus 1. 7% for MGM Resorts International (MGM). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Las Vegas Sands Corp. grew EPS 19. 9% year-over-year, compared to -68. 3% for MGM Resorts International. Over a 3-year CAGR, LVS leads at 46. 9% 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.

Las Vegas Sands Corp.

(LVS) is the more profitable company, earning 12. 5% net margin versus 1. 2% for MGM Resorts International — meaning it keeps 12. 5% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: LVS leads at 23. 7% versus 5. 7% for MGM. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — MGM leads at 44. 4%, 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, Las Vegas Sands Corp.

(LVS) trades at 16. 0x forward P/E versus 22. 2x for MGM Resorts International — 6. 1x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for LVS: 31. 0% to $69. 70.

In this comparison, LVS (2.

3% yield) pays a dividend. MGM does not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.

For long-horizon retirement investors, Las Vegas Sands Corp.

(LVS) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 1. 09), 2. 3% yield). Both have compounded well over 10 years (LVS: +49. 4%, MGM: +81. 0%), 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 Consumer Cyclical sector, making this a peer-level intra-sector comparison — the same macro tailwinds and headwinds will affect both.

In terms of investment character: MGM is a small-cap quality compounder stock; LVS is a mid-cap high-growth stock. LVS pays a dividend while MGM 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.