NYT vs GCI

For growth investors, The New York Times Company (NYT) is the stronger pick with 9.

2% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -5. 8% for Gannett Co. , Inc. (GCI). The New York Times Company (NYT) offers the better valuation at 40. 0x trailing P/E (30. 7x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate The New York Times Company (NYT) a "Hold" — based on 16 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, The New York Times Company is actually cheaper at 30.

7x.

Over the past 5 years, The New York Times Company (NYT) delivered a total return of +94.

5%, compared to +32. 4% for Gannett Co. , Inc. (GCI). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: NYT returned +598. 4% versus GCI's -30. 7%. 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), The New York Times Company (NYT) is the lower-risk stock at 0.

28β versus Gannett Co. , Inc. 's 0. 79β — meaning GCI is approximately 184% more volatile than NYT relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, The New York Times Company (NYT) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 2% versus 8% for Gannett Co. , Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.

By revenue growth (latest reported year), The New York Times Company (NYT) is pulling ahead at 9.

2% versus -5. 8% for Gannett Co. , Inc. (GCI). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: The New York Times Company grew EPS 18. 1% year-over-year, compared to 10. 0% for Gannett Co. , Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, NYT leads at 7. 0% 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.

The New York Times Company (NYT) is the more profitable company, earning 12.

2% net margin versus -1. 1% for Gannett Co. , Inc. — meaning it keeps 12. 2% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: NYT leads at 16. 0% versus -1. 7% for GCI. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — NYT leads at 47. 8%, 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, The New York Times Company (NYT) trades at 30.

7x forward P/E versus 51. 0x for Gannett Co. , Inc. — 20. 3x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for GCI: -6. 9% to $5. 55.

In this comparison, NYT (0.

8% yield) pays a dividend. GCI does not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.

For long-horizon retirement investors, The New York Times Company (NYT) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0.

28), 0. 8% yield, +598. 4% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (NYT: +598. 4%, GCI: -30. 7%), 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 Communication Services sector, making this a peer-level intra-sector comparison — the same macro tailwinds and headwinds will affect both.

NYT pays a dividend while GCI 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.