APAM vs MS vs GS vs RJF

For growth investors, The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.

(GS) is the stronger pick with 17. 0% revenue growth year-over-year, versus 7. 6% for Artisan Partners Asset Management Inc. (APAM). Artisan Partners Asset Management Inc. (APAM) offers the better valuation at 9. 3x trailing P/E (9. 9x 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.

On trailing P/E, Artisan Partners Asset Management Inc.

(APAM) is the cheapest at 9. 3x versus Morgan Stanley at 24. 3x. On forward P/E, Artisan Partners Asset Management Inc. is actually cheaper at 9. 9x. The PEG ratio (P/E divided by earnings growth rate) is the most growth-adjusted single valuation metric: Raymond James Financial, Inc. wins at 0. 62x versus Artisan Partners Asset Management Inc. 's 2. 78x — a PEG below 1. 0 traditionally signals the market is underpricing earnings growth.

Over the past 5 years, The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.

(GS) delivered a total return of +171. 1%, compared to -1. 5% for Artisan Partners Asset Management Inc. (APAM). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: MS returned +739. 4% versus APAM's +128. 8%. 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), Raymond James Financial, Inc.

(RJF) is the lower-risk stock at 1. 05β versus The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. 's 1. 47β — meaning GS is approximately 40% more volatile than RJF relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Raymond James Financial, Inc. (RJF) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 36% versus 5% for The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.

By revenue growth (latest reported year), The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.

(GS) is pulling ahead at 17. 0% versus 7. 6% for Artisan Partners Asset Management Inc. (APAM). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. grew EPS 77. 3% year-over-year, compared to 6. 2% for Raymond James Financial, 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.

Artisan Partners Asset Management Inc.

(APAM) is the more profitable company, earning 24. 3% net margin versus 11. 3% for The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. — meaning it keeps 24. 3% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: APAM leads at 33. 4% versus 14. 5% for GS. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — RJF leads at 88. 2%, 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.

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, Raymond James Financial, Inc. (RJF) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 0. 62x versus Artisan Partners Asset Management Inc. 's 2. 78x. A PEG below 1. 0 is traditionally considered the threshold for growth-adjusted undervaluation. On forward earnings alone, Artisan Partners Asset Management Inc. (APAM) trades at 9. 9x forward P/E versus 16. 3x for Morgan Stanley — 6. 4x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for MS: 6. 5% to $205. 75.

All stocks in this comparison pay dividends.

Artisan Partners Asset Management Inc. (APAM) offers the highest yield at 10. 4%, versus 1. 3% for Raymond James Financial, Inc. (RJF).

For long-horizon retirement investors, Raymond James Financial, Inc.

(RJF) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 1. 05), 1. 3% yield, +407. 4% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (RJF: +407. 4%, APAM: +128. 8%), 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 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: APAM is a small-cap deep-value stock; MS is a large-cap high-growth stock; GS is a large-cap high-growth stock; RJF is a mid-cap deep-value stock. 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.