Asset Management
Compare Stocks
2 / 10Stock Comparison
BAM vs MS
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Financial - Capital Markets
BAM vs MS — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | ||
|---|---|---|
| Industry | Asset Management | Financial - Capital Markets |
| Market Cap | $81.63B | $307.53B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $3.98B | $103.14B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $2.60B | $16.18B |
| Gross Margin | 71.0% | 55.6% |
| Operating Margin | 69.4% | 17.1% |
| Forward P/E | 26.3x | 16.3x |
| Total Debt | $219M | $360.49B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $12M | $75.74B |
BAM vs MS — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | Dec 22 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Brookfield Asset Ma… (BAM) | 100 | 169.6 | +69.6% |
| Morgan Stanley (MS) | 100 | 227.3 | +127.3% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: BAM vs MS
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
BAM is the clearest fit if your priority is sleep-well-at-night.
- Lower volatility, beta 1.50, Low D/E 6.7%, current ratio 0.88x
- Efficiency ratio 0.0% vs MS's 0.4% (lower = leaner)
- Efficiency ratio 0.0% vs MS's 0.4%
MS carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for income & stability and growth exposure.
- Dividend streak 11 yrs, beta 1.37, yield 2.0%
- Rev growth 16.8%, EPS growth 53.5%
- 7.4% 10Y total return vs BAM's 67.8%
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 16.8% NII/revenue growth vs BAM's -2.0% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (16.3x vs 26.3x) | |
| Quality / Margins | Efficiency ratio 0.0% vs MS's 0.4% (lower = leaner) | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 1.37 vs BAM's 1.50 | |
| Dividends | 2.0% yield, 11-year raise streak, vs BAM's 0.8% | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +66.7% vs BAM's -8.3% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | Efficiency ratio 0.0% vs MS's 0.4% |
BAM vs MS — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
Segment breakdown not available.
BAM vs MS — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 2 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
BAM leads this category, winning 4 of 5 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
MS is the larger business by revenue, generating $103.1B annually — 25.9x BAM's $4.0B. BAM is the more profitable business, keeping 54.5% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to MS's 13.0%.
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $4.0B | $103.1B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $3.0B | $26.3B |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | $2.6B | $16.2B |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | $1.9B | -$6.7B |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +71.0% | +55.6% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | +69.4% | +17.1% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | +54.5% | +13.0% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | +15.8% | -2.0% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | — | — |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +44.8% | +48.9% |
Valuation Metrics
MS leads this category, winning 5 of 5 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 24.3x trailing earnings, MS trades at a 36% valuation discount to BAM's 38.0x P/E. On an enterprise value basis, MS's 26.0x EV/EBITDA is more attractive than BAM's 29.5x.
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $81.6B | $307.5B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $81.8B | $592.3B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | 38.00x | 24.31x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | 26.31x | 16.28x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | 2.73x |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 29.48x | 26.03x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 20.51x | 2.98x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 24.90x | 2.95x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | 130.19x | — |
Profitability & Efficiency
BAM leads this category, winning 8 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
BAM delivers a 24.4% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $24 in annual profit, vs $15 for MS. BAM carries lower financial leverage with a 0.07x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to MS's 3.42x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), MS scores 5/9 vs BAM's 4/9, reflecting solid financial health.
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | +24.4% | +14.6% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | +15.8% | +1.2% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | +71.0% | +2.9% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | +103.0% | +3.8% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 4 | 5 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.07x | 3.42x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $207M | $284.7B |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $12M | $75.7B |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $219M | $360.5B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | 9.00x | 0.44x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
MS leads this category, winning 6 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in MS five years ago would be worth $24,217 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $16,777 for BAM. Over the past 12 months, MS leads with a +66.7% total return vs BAM's -8.3%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors MS at 34.3% vs BAM's 17.4% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | -8.1% | +7.4% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | -8.3% | +66.7% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +62.0% | +142.1% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +67.8% | +142.2% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +67.8% | +739.4% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | +17.4% | +34.3% |
Risk & Volatility
MS leads this category, winning 2 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
MS is the less volatile stock with a 1.37 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than BAM's 1.50 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. MS currently trades 99.2% from its 52-week high vs BAM's 75.9% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 1.50x | 1.37x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $64.10 | $194.83 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $42.20 | $117.21 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +75.9% | +99.2% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 58.6 | 61.2 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 3.6M | 5.4M |
Analyst Outlook
MS leads this category, winning 2 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Wall Street rates BAM as "Buy" and MS as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 27.1% upside for BAM (target: $62) vs 6.5% for MS (target: $206). For income investors, MS offers the higher dividend yield at 1.97% vs BAM's 0.77%.
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Buy | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $61.83 | $205.75 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 20 | 52 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | +0.8% | +2.0% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 1 | 11 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | $0.38 | $3.81 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | +0.0% | +1.4% |
MS leads in 4 of 6 categories (Valuation Metrics, Total Returns). BAM leads in 2 (Income & Cash Flow, Profitability & Efficiency).
BAM vs MS: Frequently Asked Questions
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is BAM or MS a better buy right now?
For growth investors, Morgan Stanley (MS) is the stronger pick with 16.
8% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -2. 0% for Brookfield Asset Management Ltd. (BAM). Morgan Stanley (MS) offers the better valuation at 24. 3x trailing P/E (16. 3x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Brookfield Asset Management Ltd. (BAM) a "Buy" — based on 20 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 — BAM or MS?
On trailing P/E, Morgan Stanley (MS) is the cheapest at 24.
3x versus Brookfield Asset Management Ltd. at 38. 0x. On forward P/E, Morgan Stanley is actually cheaper at 16. 3x.
03Which is the better long-term investment — BAM or MS?
Over the past 5 years, Morgan Stanley (MS) delivered a total return of +142.
2%, compared to +67. 8% for Brookfield Asset Management Ltd. (BAM). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: MS returned +739. 4% versus BAM's +67. 8%. 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 — BAM or MS?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Morgan Stanley (MS) is the lower-risk stock at 1.
37β versus Brookfield Asset Management Ltd. 's 1. 50β — meaning BAM is approximately 9% more volatile than MS relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Brookfield Asset Management Ltd. (BAM) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 7% versus 3% for Morgan Stanley — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — BAM or MS?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), Morgan Stanley (MS) is pulling ahead at 16.
8% versus -2. 0% for Brookfield Asset Management Ltd. (BAM). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Morgan Stanley grew EPS 53. 5% year-over-year, compared to 10. 5% for Brookfield Asset Management 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 — BAM or MS?
Brookfield Asset Management Ltd.
(BAM) is the more profitable company, earning 54. 5% net margin versus 13. 0% for Morgan Stanley — meaning it keeps 54. 5% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: BAM leads at 69. 4% versus 17. 1% for MS. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — BAM leads at 71. 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 BAM or MS more undervalued right now?
On forward earnings alone, Morgan Stanley (MS) trades at 16.
3x forward P/E versus 26. 3x for Brookfield Asset Management Ltd. — 10. 0x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for BAM: 27. 1% to $61. 83.
08Which pays a better dividend — BAM or MS?
All stocks in this comparison pay dividends.
Morgan Stanley (MS) offers the highest yield at 2. 0%, versus 0. 8% for Brookfield Asset Management Ltd. (BAM).
09Is BAM or MS better for a retirement portfolio?
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). Both have compounded well over 10 years (MS: +739. 4%, BAM: +67. 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.
10What are the main differences between BAM and MS?
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: BAM is a mid-cap quality compounder stock; MS is a large-cap high-growth 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.
Find Stocks Like These
Explore pre-built screens for each stock's profile, or build a custom screen to find stocks that outperform both.
You Might Also Compare
Based on how these companies actually compete and overlap — not just which sector they're filed under.