Shell Companies
Compare Stocks
5 / 10Stock Comparison
ALDF vs GS vs MS vs JPM vs C
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Financial - Capital Markets
Financial - Capital Markets
Banks - Diversified
Banks - Diversified
ALDF vs GS vs MS vs JPM vs C — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Shell Companies | Financial - Capital Markets | Financial - Capital Markets | Banks - Diversified | Banks - Diversified |
| Market Cap | $317M | $290.92B | $307.14B | $814.69B | $219.41B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $0.00 | $126.85B | $103.14B | $270.79B | $170.71B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $4K | $16.67B | $16.18B | $58.03B | $14.69B |
| Gross Margin | — | 41.1% | 55.6% | 58.6% | 41.7% |
| Operating Margin | — | 14.5% | 17.1% | 27.7% | 10.0% |
| Forward P/E | 168.5x | 15.8x | 16.2x | 13.6x | 11.6x |
| Total Debt | $0.00 | $616.93B | $360.49B | $751.15B | $590.56B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $1M | $182.09B | $75.74B | $469.32B | $276.53B |
ALDF vs GS vs MS vs JPM vs C — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | Dec 24 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Aldel Financial II … (ALDF) | 100 | 107.0 | +7.0% |
| The Goldman Sachs G… (GS) | 100 | 163.5 | +63.5% |
| Morgan Stanley (MS) | 100 | 153.5 | +53.5% |
| JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM) | 100 | 126.1 | +26.1% |
| Citigroup Inc. (C) | 100 | 178.4 | +78.4% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: ALDF vs GS vs MS vs JPM vs C
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
ALDF lags the leaders in this set but could rank higher in a more targeted comparison.
GS carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for growth exposure.
- Rev growth 17.0%, EPS growth 77.3%
- 17.0% NII/revenue growth vs C's 9.9%
- Efficiency ratio 0.3% vs MS's 0.4% (lower = leaner)
- Efficiency ratio 0.3% vs MS's 0.4%
MS is the clearest fit if your priority is long-term compounding and defensive.
- 7.4% 10Y total return vs GS's 5.4%
- Beta 1.36, yield 2.0%, current ratio 0.66x
JPM ranks third and is worth considering specifically for income & stability and sleep-well-at-night.
- Dividend streak 14 yrs, beta 1.00, yield 1.7%
- Lower volatility, beta 1.00, current ratio 0.65x
- PEG 1.04 vs MS's 1.82
- NIM 2.3% vs GS's 0.5%
C is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if value and dividends is your priority.
- Lower P/E (11.6x vs 16.2x)
- 2.2% yield, 3-year raise streak, vs JPM's 1.7%, (1 stock pays no dividend)
- +78.6% vs ALDF's +3.4%
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 17.0% NII/revenue growth vs C's 9.9% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (11.6x vs 16.2x) | |
| Quality / Margins | Efficiency ratio 0.3% vs MS's 0.4% (lower = leaner) | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 1.00 vs GS's 1.47, lower leverage | |
| Dividends | 2.2% yield, 3-year raise streak, vs JPM's 1.7%, (1 stock pays no dividend) | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +78.6% vs ALDF's +3.4% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | Efficiency ratio 0.3% vs MS's 0.4% |
ALDF vs GS vs MS vs JPM vs C — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
Segment breakdown not available.
ALDF vs GS vs MS vs JPM vs C — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 5 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
JPM leads in 2 of 6 categories
GS leads 1 • ALDF leads 1 • MS leads 0 • C leads 0 • 2 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
JPM leads this category, winning 3 of 5 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
JPM and ALDF operate at a comparable scale, with $270.8B and $0 in trailing revenue. JPM is the more profitable business, keeping 21.6% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to C's 7.4%.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $0 | $126.9B | $103.1B | $270.8B | $170.7B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | — | $23.4B | $26.3B | $81.3B | $24.1B |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | — | $16.7B | $16.2B | $58.0B | $14.7B |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | — | $15.8B | -$6.7B | -$119.7B | -$76.0B |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | — | +41.1% | +55.6% | +58.6% | +41.7% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | — | +14.5% | +17.1% | +27.7% | +10.0% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | — | +11.3% | +13.0% | +21.6% | +7.4% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | — | -12.1% | -2.0% | -15.5% | -15.3% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | — | — | — | — | — |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | — | +45.8% | +48.9% | +16.0% | +23.2% |
Valuation Metrics
Evenly matched — JPM and C each lead in 3 of 6 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 15.3x trailing earnings, JPM trades at a 91% valuation discount to ALDF's 168.5x P/E. Adjusting for growth (PEG ratio), JPM offers better value at 1.18x vs MS's 2.73x — a lower PEG means you pay less per unit of expected earnings growth.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $317M | $290.9B | $307.1B | $814.7B | $219.4B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $316M | $725.8B | $591.9B | $1.10T | $533.4B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | 168.46x | 23.10x | 24.28x | 15.30x | 21.10x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | — | 15.79x | 16.24x | 13.56x | 11.61x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | 1.65x | 2.73x | 1.18x | — |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | — | 34.91x | 26.01x | 13.21x | 24.98x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | — | 2.29x | 2.98x | 3.01x | 1.29x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 1.35x | 2.56x | 2.95x | 2.52x | 1.14x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | 9999.00x | — | — | — | — |
Profitability & Efficiency
JPM leads this category, winning 7 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
JPM delivers a 16.1% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $16 in annual profit, vs $0 for ALDF. JPM carries lower financial leverage with a 2.18x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to GS's 5.06x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), ALDF scores 5/9 vs GS's 4/9, reflecting solid financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | +0.0% | +12.6% | +14.6% | +16.1% | +6.9% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | +0.0% | +0.9% | +1.2% | +1.3% | +0.6% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | — | +1.9% | +2.9% | +5.4% | +1.6% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | -0.1% | +3.6% | +3.8% | +8.2% | +3.0% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | — | 5.06x | 3.42x | 2.18x | 2.82x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | -$1M | $434.8B | $284.7B | $281.8B | $314.0B |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $1M | $182.1B | $75.7B | $469.3B | $276.5B |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $0 | $616.9B | $360.5B | $751.1B | $590.6B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | — | 0.31x | 0.44x | 0.74x | 0.24x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
GS leads this category, winning 3 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in GS five years ago would be worth $26,886 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $10,737 for ALDF. Over the past 12 months, C leads with a +78.6% total return vs ALDF's +3.4%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors GS at 44.0% vs ALDF's 2.4% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | +1.3% | +2.9% | +7.2% | -6.2% | +6.8% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | +3.4% | +68.3% | +61.7% | +21.5% | +78.6% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +7.4% | +198.5% | +141.8% | +131.5% | +185.4% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +7.4% | +168.9% | +142.9% | +101.8% | +81.5% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +7.4% | +541.0% | +743.3% | +454.6% | +228.5% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | +2.4% | +44.0% | +34.2% | +32.3% | +41.8% |
Risk & Volatility
ALDF leads this category, winning 2 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
ALDF is the less volatile stock with a -0.02 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than GS's 1.47 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. ALDF currently trades 99.7% from its 52-week high vs JPM's 89.6% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | -0.02x | 1.47x | 1.36x | 1.00x | 1.46x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $10.66 | $984.70 | $194.83 | $337.25 | $135.29 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $10.20 | $558.21 | $119.99 | $251.55 | $70.95 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +99.7% | +95.1% | +99.1% | +89.6% | +92.8% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 55.6 | 55.7 | 59.9 | 48.8 | 60.0 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 21K | 2.0M | 5.3M | 8.3M | 11.5M |
Analyst Outlook
Evenly matched — JPM and C each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: GS as "Hold", MS as "Buy", JPM as "Buy", C as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 12.1% upside for JPM (target: $339) vs 4.7% for GS (target: $981). For income investors, C offers the higher dividend yield at 2.18% vs GS's 1.44%.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | — | Hold | Buy | Buy | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | — | $980.78 | $203.00 | $338.78 | $140.50 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | — | 55 | 52 | 61 | 27 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | — | +1.4% | +2.0% | +1.7% | +2.2% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | — | 12 | 11 | 14 | 3 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | — | $13.48 | $3.81 | $5.13 | $2.73 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | 0.0% | +3.5% | +1.4% | +3.5% | +3.4% |
JPM leads in 2 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow, Profitability & Efficiency). GS leads in 1 (Total Returns). 2 tied.
ALDF vs GS vs MS vs JPM vs C: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is ALDF or GS or MS or JPM or C a better buy right now?
For growth investors, The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.
(GS) is the stronger pick with 17. 0% revenue growth year-over-year, versus 9. 9% for Citigroup Inc. (C). JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM) offers the better valuation at 15. 3x trailing P/E (13. 6x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Morgan Stanley (MS) a "Buy" — based on 52 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 — ALDF or GS or MS or JPM or C?
On trailing P/E, JPMorgan Chase & Co.
(JPM) is the cheapest at 15. 3x versus Aldel Financial II Inc. at 168. 5x. On forward P/E, Citigroup Inc. is actually cheaper at 11. 6x — notably different from the trailing picture, reflecting expected earnings growth. The PEG ratio (P/E divided by earnings growth rate) is the most growth-adjusted single valuation metric: JPMorgan Chase & Co. wins at 1. 04x versus Morgan Stanley's 1. 82x — a reasonable growth-adjusted valuation.
03Which is the better long-term investment — ALDF or GS or MS or JPM or C?
Over the past 5 years, The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.
(GS) delivered a total return of +168. 9%, compared to +7. 4% for Aldel Financial II Inc. (ALDF). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: MS returned +743. 3% versus ALDF's +7. 4%. 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 — ALDF or GS or MS or JPM or C?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Aldel Financial II Inc.
(ALDF) is the lower-risk stock at -0. 02β versus The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. 's 1. 47β — meaning GS is approximately -6038% more volatile than ALDF relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 2% versus 5% for The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — ALDF or GS or MS or JPM or C?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.
(GS) is pulling ahead at 17. 0% versus 9. 9% for Citigroup Inc. (C). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. grew EPS 77. 3% year-over-year, compared to 21. 7% for JPMorgan Chase & Co.. 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 — ALDF or GS or MS or JPM or C?
JPMorgan Chase & Co.
(JPM) is the more profitable company, earning 21. 6% net margin versus 0. 0% for Aldel Financial II Inc. — meaning it keeps 21. 6% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: JPM leads at 27. 7% versus 0. 0% for ALDF. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — JPM leads at 58. 6%, 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 ALDF or GS or MS or JPM or C 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, JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 1. 04x versus Morgan Stanley's 1. 82x. A PEG below 1. 5 suggests fair-to-attractive pricing relative to expected growth. On forward earnings alone, Citigroup Inc. (C) trades at 11. 6x forward P/E versus 16. 2x for Morgan Stanley — 4. 6x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for JPM: 12. 1% to $338. 78.
08Which pays a better dividend — ALDF or GS or MS or JPM or C?
In this comparison, C (2.
2% yield), MS (2. 0% yield), JPM (1. 7% yield), GS (1. 4% yield) pay a dividend. ALDF does not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
09Is ALDF or GS or MS or JPM or C better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, Aldel Financial II Inc.
(ALDF) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β -0. 02)). Both have compounded well over 10 years (ALDF: +7. 4%, C: +228. 5%), 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 ALDF and GS and MS and JPM and C?
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: ALDF is a small-cap quality compounder stock; GS is a large-cap high-growth stock; MS is a large-cap high-growth stock; JPM is a large-cap deep-value stock; C is a large-cap quality compounder stock. GS, MS, JPM, C pay a dividend while ALDF 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.