WD vs JLL

For growth investors, Jones Lang LaSalle Incorporated (JLL) is the stronger pick with 11.

4% revenue growth year-over-year, versus 9. 0% for Walker & Dunlop, Inc. (WD). Jones Lang LaSalle Incorporated (JLL) offers the better valuation at 19. 8x trailing P/E (14. 4x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Walker & Dunlop, Inc. (WD) a "Buy" — based on 15 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, Jones Lang LaSalle Incorporated (JLL) is the cheapest at 19.

8x versus Walker & Dunlop, Inc. at 32. 4x. On forward P/E, Jones Lang LaSalle Incorporated is actually cheaper at 14. 4x.

Over the past 5 years, Jones Lang LaSalle Incorporated (JLL) delivered a total return of +68.

5%, compared to -34. 9% for Walker & Dunlop, Inc. (WD). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: WD returned +191. 8% versus JLL's +190. 9%. 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), Jones Lang LaSalle Incorporated (JLL) is the lower-risk stock at 1.

26β versus Walker & Dunlop, Inc. 's 1. 32β — meaning WD is approximately 5% more volatile than JLL relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Jones Lang LaSalle Incorporated (JLL) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 44% versus 129% for Walker & Dunlop, Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.

By revenue growth (latest reported year), Jones Lang LaSalle Incorporated (JLL) is pulling ahead at 11.

4% versus 9. 0% for Walker & Dunlop, Inc. (WD). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Jones Lang LaSalle Incorporated grew EPS 45. 1% year-over-year, compared to -48. 6% for Walker & Dunlop, Inc.. 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.

Walker & Dunlop, Inc.

(WD) is the more profitable company, earning 4. 6% net margin versus 3. 0% for Jones Lang LaSalle Incorporated — meaning it keeps 4. 6% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: WD leads at 17. 3% versus 4. 5% for JLL. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — JLL leads at 99. 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, Jones Lang LaSalle Incorporated (JLL) trades at 14.

4x forward P/E versus 14. 9x for Walker & Dunlop, Inc. — 0. 4x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for WD: 35. 4% to $72. 00.

In this comparison, WD (5.

2% yield) pays a dividend. JLL does not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.

For long-horizon retirement investors, Walker & Dunlop, Inc.

(WD) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (5. 2% yield, +191. 8% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (WD: +191. 8%, JLL: +190. 9%), 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.

These companies operate in different sectors (WD (Financial Services) and JLL (Real Estate)), which means they face different economic cycles, regulatory environments, and macro sensitivities — making direct comparison nuanced.

In terms of investment character: WD is a small-cap income-oriented stock; JLL is a mid-cap quality compounder stock. WD pays a dividend while JLL 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.