APO vs MS vs GS vs BX

For growth investors, Blackstone Inc.

(BX) is the stronger pick with 21. 6% revenue growth year-over-year, versus 16. 0% for Apollo Global Management, Inc. (APO). Apollo Global Management, Inc. (APO) offers the better valuation at 17. 8x trailing P/E (14. 6x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Apollo Global Management, Inc. (APO) a "Buy" — based on 28 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, Apollo Global Management, Inc.

(APO) is the cheapest at 17. 8x versus Blackstone Inc. at 32. 1x. On forward P/E, Apollo Global Management, Inc. is actually cheaper at 14. 6x. The PEG ratio (P/E divided by earnings growth rate) is the most growth-adjusted single valuation metric: Blackstone Inc. wins at 1. 00x versus Morgan Stanley's 1. 83x — 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 +64. 8% for Blackstone Inc. (BX). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: APO returned +768. 9% versus BX's +487. 1%. 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), Morgan Stanley (MS) is the lower-risk stock at 1.

37β versus Blackstone Inc. 's 1. 53β — meaning BX is approximately 12% more volatile than MS relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Apollo Global Management, Inc. (APO) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 31% versus 5% for The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.

By revenue growth (latest reported year), Blackstone Inc.

(BX) is pulling ahead at 21. 6% versus 16. 0% for Apollo Global Management, Inc. (APO). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. grew EPS 77. 3% year-over-year, compared to -1. 0% for Apollo Global Management, 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.

Blackstone Inc.

(BX) is the more profitable company, earning 21. 8% net margin versus 11. 3% for The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. — meaning it keeps 21. 8% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: BX leads at 51. 9% versus 14. 5% for GS. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — APO leads at 88. 5%, 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, Blackstone Inc. (BX) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 1. 00x versus Morgan Stanley's 1. 83x. A PEG below 1. 0 is traditionally considered the threshold for growth-adjusted undervaluation. On forward earnings alone, Apollo Global Management, Inc. (APO) trades at 14. 6x forward P/E versus 20. 9x for Blackstone Inc. — 6. 3x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for BX: 25. 3% to $156. 29.

All stocks in this comparison pay dividends.

Blackstone Inc. (BX) offers the highest yield at 6. 2%, versus 1. 4% for The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (GS).

For long-horizon retirement investors, Morgan Stanley (MS) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (2.

0% yield, +739. 4% 10Y return). Blackstone Inc. (BX) carries a higher beta of 1. 53 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (MS: +739. 4%, BX: +487. 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.

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.

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.