Asset Management
Compare Stocks
5 / 10Stock Comparison
AB vs BEN vs IVZ vs VRTS vs AMG
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Asset Management
Asset Management
Asset Management
Asset Management
AB vs BEN vs IVZ vs VRTS vs AMG — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Asset Management | Asset Management | Asset Management | Asset Management | Asset Management |
| Market Cap | $4.40B | $15.86B | $11.92B | $949M | $7.95B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $333M | $8.77B | $6.38B | $831M | $2.45B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $300M | $812M | $-243M | $138M | $717M |
| Gross Margin | 100.0% | 80.3% | 43.2% | 74.9% | 86.0% |
| Operating Margin | 100.0% | 6.9% | -10.9% | 17.4% | 31.8% |
| Forward P/E | 11.5x | 11.2x | 10.4x | 5.5x | 9.0x |
| Total Debt | $0.00 | $13.30B | $10.12B | $2.84B | $2.69B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $0.00 | $3.57B | $1.98B | $477M | $586M |
AB vs BEN vs IVZ vs VRTS vs AMG — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | May 20 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| AllianceBernstein H… (AB) | 100 | 159.5 | +59.5% |
| Franklin Resources,… (BEN) | 100 | 161.8 | +61.8% |
| Invesco Ltd. (IVZ) | 100 | 336.6 | +236.6% |
| Virtus Investment P… (VRTS) | 100 | 152.5 | +52.5% |
| Affiliated Managers… (AMG) | 100 | 447.0 | +347.0% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: AB vs BEN vs IVZ vs VRTS vs AMG
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
AB is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if long-term compounding is your priority.
- 199.2% 10Y total return vs AMG's 86.2%
- Beta 0.60 vs IVZ's 1.67
- 8.8% yield, 2-year raise streak, vs VRTS's 6.6%
BEN lags the leaders in this set but could rank higher in a more targeted comparison.
IVZ carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for quality and momentum.
- Efficiency ratio 0.5% vs BEN's 0.7% (lower = leaner)
- +93.1% vs VRTS's -5.5%
- Efficiency ratio 0.5% vs BEN's 0.7%
VRTS is the clearest fit if your priority is income & stability and sleep-well-at-night.
- Dividend streak 7 yrs, beta 1.14, yield 6.6%
- Lower volatility, beta 1.14, current ratio 3.80x
- Beta 1.14, yield 6.6%, current ratio 3.80x
AMG ranks third and is worth considering specifically for growth exposure and valuation efficiency.
- Rev growth 19.8%, EPS growth 50.3%
- PEG 0.23 vs AB's 18.67
- 19.8% NII/revenue growth vs AB's -28.0%
- Lower P/E (9.0x vs 11.2x)
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 19.8% NII/revenue growth vs AB's -28.0% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (9.0x vs 11.2x) | |
| Quality / Margins | Efficiency ratio 0.5% vs BEN's 0.7% (lower = leaner) | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.60 vs IVZ's 1.67 | |
| Dividends | 8.8% yield, 2-year raise streak, vs VRTS's 6.6% | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +93.1% vs VRTS's -5.5% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | Efficiency ratio 0.5% vs BEN's 0.7% |
AB vs BEN vs IVZ vs VRTS vs AMG — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
Segment breakdown not available.
Segment breakdown not available.
AB vs BEN vs IVZ vs VRTS vs AMG — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 5 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
AB leads in 2 of 6 categories
AMG leads 2 • BEN leads 0 • IVZ leads 0 • VRTS leads 0 • 2 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
AB leads this category, winning 4 of 5 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
BEN is the larger business by revenue, generating $8.8B annually — 26.4x AB's $333M. AB is the more profitable business, keeping 90.1% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to IVZ's -4.4%.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $333M | $8.8B | $6.4B | $831M | $2.4B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $243M | $1.2B | $1.2B | $205M | $855M |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | $300M | $812M | -$243M | $138M | $717M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | $352M | $938M | $1.9B | -$67M | $978M |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +100.0% | +80.3% | +43.2% | +74.9% | +86.0% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | +100.0% | +6.9% | -10.9% | +17.4% | +31.8% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | +90.1% | +6.0% | -4.4% | +16.7% | +29.3% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | +105.9% | +10.4% | +22.6% | -8.9% | +41.1% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | — | — | — | — | — |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -2.2% | +100.0% | +34.2% | +10.9% | +149.1% |
Valuation Metrics
AMG leads this category, winning 3 of 7 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 7.1x trailing earnings, VRTS trades at a 79% valuation discount to BEN's 33.5x P/E. Adjusting for growth (PEG ratio), AMG offers better value at 0.33x vs AB's 18.67x — a lower PEG means you pay less per unit of expected earnings growth.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $4.4B | $15.9B | $11.9B | $949M | $7.9B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $4.4B | $25.6B | $20.1B | $3.3B | $10.1B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | 13.41x | 33.54x | -16.77x | 7.10x | 13.09x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | 11.52x | 11.21x | 10.44x | 5.55x | 8.98x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | 18.67x | — | — | 0.48x | 0.33x |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 18.11x | 22.53x | 16.34x | 16.20x | 10.61x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 13.23x | 1.81x | 1.87x | 1.14x | 3.25x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 3.25x | 1.11x | 0.94x | 0.95x | 2.22x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | 12.49x | 17.40x | 8.27x | — | 7.91x |
Profitability & Efficiency
AB leads this category, winning 6 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
AB delivers a 18.8% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $19 in annual profit, vs $-2 for IVZ. AMG carries lower financial leverage with a 0.61x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to VRTS's 2.74x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), AMG scores 8/9 vs VRTS's 5/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | +18.8% | +5.6% | -1.7% | +13.5% | +16.0% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | +18.7% | +2.5% | -0.9% | +3.6% | +8.0% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | +15.3% | +1.6% | -2.3% | +3.0% | +8.1% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | +20.3% | +2.0% | -2.6% | +3.7% | +8.6% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 5 | 6 | 6 | 5 | 8 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | — | 0.94x | 0.78x | 2.74x | 0.61x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $0 | $9.7B | $8.1B | $2.4B | $2.1B |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $0 | $3.6B | $2.0B | $477M | $586M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $0 | $13.3B | $10.1B | $2.8B | $2.7B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | — | 15.19x | -6.19x | 2.15x | 9.69x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
AMG leads this category, winning 3 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in AMG five years ago would be worth $17,168 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $6,496 for VRTS. Over the past 12 months, IVZ leads with a +93.1% total return vs VRTS's -5.5%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors AMG at 28.0% vs VRTS's 0.0% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | +5.5% | +29.6% | +0.4% | -9.8% | +3.1% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | +3.2% | +55.5% | +93.1% | -5.5% | +70.0% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +40.9% | +35.3% | +79.8% | +0.1% | +109.8% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +25.5% | +7.4% | +8.2% | -35.0% | +71.7% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +199.2% | +23.5% | +22.1% | +142.6% | +86.2% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | +12.1% | +10.6% | +21.6% | +0.0% | +28.0% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — AB and BEN each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
AB is the less volatile stock with a 0.60 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than IVZ's 1.67 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. BEN currently trades 97.1% from its 52-week high vs VRTS's 65.9% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 0.60x | 1.31x | 1.67x | 1.14x | 1.14x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $44.11 | $31.44 | $29.61 | $215.06 | $334.78 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $35.59 | $20.08 | $14.10 | $121.61 | $172.54 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +90.3% | +97.1% | +90.6% | +65.9% | +88.9% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 60.3 | 78.4 | 69.4 | 55.4 | 61.3 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 312K | 5.1M | 5.1M | 101K | 345K |
Analyst Outlook
Evenly matched — AB and VRTS each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: AB as "Buy", BEN as "Hold", IVZ as "Hold", VRTS as "Hold", AMG as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 15.0% upside for VRTS (target: $163) vs -5.8% for BEN (target: $29). For income investors, AB offers the higher dividend yield at 8.76% vs IVZ's 3.10%.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Buy | Hold | Hold | Hold | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $40.75 | $28.75 | $29.72 | $163.00 | $331.50 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 13 | 27 | 28 | 11 | 12 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | +8.8% | +4.3% | +3.1% | +6.6% | +0.0% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 2 | 6 | 4 | 7 | 0 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | $3.49 | $1.33 | $0.83 | $9.32 | $0.03 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | 0.0% | +1.5% | +15.6% | +6.3% | +8.9% |
AB leads in 2 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow, Profitability & Efficiency). AMG leads in 2 (Valuation Metrics, Total Returns). 2 tied.
AB vs BEN vs IVZ vs VRTS vs AMG: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is AB or BEN or IVZ or VRTS or AMG a better buy right now?
For growth investors, Affiliated Managers Group, Inc.
(AMG) is the stronger pick with 19. 8% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -28. 0% for AllianceBernstein Holding L. P. (AB). Virtus Investment Partners, Inc. (VRTS) offers the better valuation at 7. 1x trailing P/E (5. 5x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate AllianceBernstein Holding L. P. (AB) a "Buy" — based on 13 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.
02Which has the better valuation — AB or BEN or IVZ or VRTS or AMG?
On trailing P/E, Virtus Investment Partners, Inc.
(VRTS) is the cheapest at 7. 1x versus Franklin Resources, Inc. at 33. 5x. On forward P/E, Virtus Investment Partners, Inc. is actually cheaper at 5. 5x. The PEG ratio (P/E divided by earnings growth rate) is the most growth-adjusted single valuation metric: Affiliated Managers Group, Inc. wins at 0. 23x versus AllianceBernstein Holding L. P. 's 18. 67x — a PEG below 1. 0 traditionally signals the market is underpricing earnings growth.
03Which is the better long-term investment — AB or BEN or IVZ or VRTS or AMG?
Over the past 5 years, Affiliated Managers Group, Inc.
(AMG) delivered a total return of +71. 7%, compared to -35. 0% for Virtus Investment Partners, Inc. (VRTS). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: AB returned +199. 2% versus IVZ's +22. 1%. Past returns do not guarantee future results, and the stock with the higher historical return may already have its best growth priced in.
04Which is safer — AB or BEN or IVZ or VRTS or AMG?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), AllianceBernstein Holding L.
P. (AB) is the lower-risk stock at 0. 60β versus Invesco Ltd. 's 1. 67β — meaning IVZ is approximately 179% more volatile than AB relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Affiliated Managers Group, Inc. (AMG) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 61% versus 3% for Virtus Investment Partners, Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — AB or BEN or IVZ or VRTS or AMG?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), Affiliated Managers Group, Inc.
(AMG) is pulling ahead at 19. 8% versus -28. 0% for AllianceBernstein Holding L. P. (AB). 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.
06Which has better profit margins — AB or BEN or IVZ or VRTS or AMG?
AllianceBernstein Holding L.
P. (AB) is the more profitable company, earning 90. 1% net margin versus -4. 4% for Invesco Ltd. — meaning it keeps 90. 1% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: AB leads at 100. 0% versus -10. 9% for IVZ. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — AB leads at 100. 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.
07Is AB or BEN or IVZ or VRTS or AMG more undervalued right now?
The PEG ratio (forward P/E divided by expected earnings growth rate) is the most precise measure of undervaluation relative to growth potential.
By this metric, Affiliated Managers Group, Inc. (AMG) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 0. 23x versus AllianceBernstein Holding L. P. 's 18. 67x. A PEG below 1. 0 is traditionally considered the threshold for growth-adjusted undervaluation. On forward earnings alone, Virtus Investment Partners, Inc. (VRTS) trades at 5. 5x forward P/E versus 11. 5x for AllianceBernstein Holding L. P. — 6. 0x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for VRTS: 15. 0% to $163. 00.
08Which pays a better dividend — AB or BEN or IVZ or VRTS or AMG?
In this comparison, AB (8.
8% yield), VRTS (6. 6% yield), BEN (4. 3% yield), IVZ (3. 1% yield) pay a dividend. AMG does not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
09Is AB or BEN or IVZ or VRTS or AMG better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, AllianceBernstein Holding L.
P. (AB) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0. 60), 8. 8% yield, +199. 2% 10Y return). 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 (AB: +199. 2%, IVZ: +22. 1%), 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.
10What are the main differences between AB and BEN and IVZ and VRTS and AMG?
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: AB is a small-cap deep-value stock; BEN is a mid-cap income-oriented stock; IVZ is a mid-cap income-oriented stock; VRTS is a small-cap deep-value stock; AMG is a small-cap high-growth stock. AB, BEN, IVZ, VRTS pay 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.
Find Stocks Like These
Explore pre-built screens for each stock's profile, or build a custom screen to find stocks that outperform all of them.
You Might Also Compare
Based on how these companies actually compete and overlap — not just which sector they're filed under.