Financial - Capital Markets
Compare Stocks
3 / 10Stock Comparison
BGC vs MKTX vs GFI
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Financial - Capital Markets
Gold
BGC vs MKTX vs GFI — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Financial - Capital Markets | Financial - Capital Markets | Gold |
| Market Cap | $4.03B | $5.62B | $37.38B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $2.82B | $817M | $10.92B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $155M | $220M | $2.54B |
| Gross Margin | 100.0% | 68.9% | 43.1% |
| Operating Margin | 16.8% | 41.7% | 43.2% |
| Forward P/E | 7.8x | 18.5x | 7.1x |
| Total Debt | $1.78B | $73M | $2.95B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $852M | $544M | $860M |
BGC vs MKTX vs GFI — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | May 20 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| BGC Group, Inc (BGC) | 100 | 430.2 | +330.2% |
| MarketAxess Holding… (MKTX) | 100 | 29.7 | -70.3% |
| Gold Fields Limited (GFI) | 100 | 540.9 | +440.9% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: BGC vs MKTX vs GFI
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
BGC is the clearest fit if your priority is growth exposure and sleep-well-at-night.
- Rev growth 27.6%, EPS growth 24.0%
- Lower volatility, beta 0.78, current ratio 65.98x
- Beta 0.78, current ratio 65.98x
MKTX is the clearest fit if your priority is income & stability.
- Dividend streak 11 yrs, beta -0.28, yield 2.0%
- 33.6% margin vs BGC's 5.5%
- 2.0% yield, 11-year raise streak, vs GFI's 0.9%, (1 stock pays no dividend)
GFI has the current edge in this matchup, primarily because of its strength in long-term compounding and valuation efficiency.
- 9.6% 10Y total return vs BGC's 130.0%
- PEG 0.15 vs MKTX's 3.00
- Lower P/E (7.1x vs 7.8x), PEG 0.15 vs 0.26
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 27.6% NII/revenue growth vs MKTX's 8.6% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (7.1x vs 7.8x), PEG 0.15 vs 0.26 | |
| Quality / Margins | 33.6% margin vs BGC's 5.5% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.78 vs GFI's 0.86 | |
| Dividends | 2.0% yield, 11-year raise streak, vs GFI's 0.9%, (1 stock pays no dividend) | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +90.6% vs MKTX's -31.9% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 23.4% ROA vs BGC's 3.5%, ROIC 24.0% vs 13.0% |
BGC vs MKTX vs GFI — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
Segment breakdown not available.
BGC vs MKTX vs GFI — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 3 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
Evenly matched — MKTX and GFI each lead in 2 of 5 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
GFI is the larger business by revenue, generating $10.9B annually — 13.4x MKTX's $817M. MKTX is the more profitable business, keeping 33.6% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to BGC's 5.5%.
| Metric | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $2.8B | $817M | $10.9B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $549M | $429M | $6.0B |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | $155M | $220M | $2.5B |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | $166M | $346M | $2.0B |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +100.0% | +68.9% | +43.1% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | +16.8% | +41.7% | +43.2% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | +5.5% | +33.6% | +23.2% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | — | +45.9% | +18.7% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | — | — | +64.2% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -40.0% | -3.2% | +165.1% |
Valuation Metrics
MKTX leads this category, winning 3 of 7 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 20.8x trailing earnings, MKTX trades at a 42% valuation discount to BGC's 35.8x P/E. Adjusting for growth (PEG ratio), GFI offers better value at 0.62x vs MKTX's 3.38x — a lower PEG means you pay less per unit of expected earnings growth.
| Metric | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $4.0B | $5.6B | $37.4B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $5.0B | $5.1B | $39.5B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | 35.81x | 20.78x | 30.26x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | 7.79x | 18.46x | 7.10x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | 1.18x | 3.38x | 0.62x |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 10.45x | 12.22x | 14.50x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 1.43x | 6.88x | 7.19x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 4.66x | 4.10x | 6.97x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | — | 14.98x | 52.70x |
Profitability & Efficiency
MKTX leads this category, winning 5 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
GFI delivers a 40.6% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $41 in annual profit, vs $14 for BGC. MKTX carries lower financial leverage with a 0.05x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to BGC's 1.55x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), BGC scores 6/9 vs GFI's 5/9, reflecting solid financial health.
| Metric | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | +13.5% | +15.8% | +40.6% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | +3.5% | +10.9% | +23.4% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | +13.0% | +18.0% | +24.0% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | +13.5% | +23.0% | +27.6% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 6 | 6 | 5 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 1.55x | 0.05x | 0.55x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $924M | -$472M | $2.1B |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $852M | $544M | $860M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $1.8B | $73M | $2.9B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | 2.24x | 443.10x | 44.58x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
Evenly matched — BGC and GFI each lead in 3 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in GFI five years ago would be worth $46,623 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $3,629 for MKTX. Over the past 12 months, GFI leads with a +90.6% total return vs MKTX's -31.9%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors BGC at 39.4% vs MKTX's -18.9% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | +24.4% | -14.8% | -0.8% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | +18.8% | -31.9% | +90.6% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +171.0% | -46.6% | +170.9% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +108.0% | -63.7% | +366.2% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +130.0% | +40.4% | +959.4% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | +39.4% | -18.9% | +39.4% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — BGC and MKTX each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
MKTX is the less volatile stock with a -0.28 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than GFI's 0.86 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. BGC currently trades 93.2% from its 52-week high vs MKTX's 65.0% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 0.78x | -0.28x | 0.86x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $11.90 | $232.84 | $61.64 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $8.27 | $148.53 | $19.35 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +93.2% | +65.0% | +67.7% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 58.0 | 32.3 | 39.2 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 2.4M | 440K | 3.1M |
Analyst Outlook
MKTX leads this category, winning 2 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: BGC as "Buy", MKTX as "Hold", GFI as "Hold". Consensus price targets imply 30.3% upside for GFI (target: $54) vs 3.6% for BGC (target: $12). For income investors, MKTX offers the higher dividend yield at 1.98% vs GFI's 0.94%.
| Metric | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Buy | Hold | Hold |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $11.50 | $195.60 | $54.42 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 2 | 23 | 18 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | — | +2.0% | +0.9% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 3 | 11 | 0 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | — | $2.99 | $0.39 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | 0.0% | +1.3% | 0.0% |
MKTX leads in 3 of 6 categories — strongest in Valuation Metrics and Profitability & Efficiency. 3 categories are tied.
BGC vs MKTX vs GFI: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is BGC or MKTX or GFI a better buy right now?
For growth investors, BGC Group, Inc (BGC) is the stronger pick with 27.
6% revenue growth year-over-year, versus 8. 6% for MarketAxess Holdings Inc. (MKTX). MarketAxess Holdings Inc. (MKTX) offers the better valuation at 20. 8x trailing P/E (18. 5x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate BGC Group, Inc (BGC) a "Buy" — based on 2 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 — BGC or MKTX or GFI?
On trailing P/E, MarketAxess Holdings Inc.
(MKTX) is the cheapest at 20. 8x versus BGC Group, Inc at 35. 8x. On forward P/E, Gold Fields Limited is actually cheaper at 7. 1x — 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: Gold Fields Limited wins at 0. 15x versus MarketAxess Holdings Inc. 's 3. 00x — a PEG below 1. 0 traditionally signals the market is underpricing earnings growth.
03Which is the better long-term investment — BGC or MKTX or GFI?
Over the past 5 years, Gold Fields Limited (GFI) delivered a total return of +366.
2%, compared to -63. 7% for MarketAxess Holdings Inc. (MKTX). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: GFI returned +959. 4% versus MKTX's +40. 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 — BGC or MKTX or GFI?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), MarketAxess Holdings Inc.
(MKTX) is the lower-risk stock at -0. 28β versus Gold Fields Limited's 0. 86β — meaning GFI is approximately -405% more volatile than MKTX relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, MarketAxess Holdings Inc. (MKTX) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 5% versus 155% for BGC Group, Inc — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — BGC or MKTX or GFI?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), BGC Group, Inc (BGC) is pulling ahead at 27.
6% versus 8. 6% for MarketAxess Holdings Inc. (MKTX). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Gold Fields Limited grew EPS 79. 2% year-over-year, compared to 6. 3% for MarketAxess Holdings 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.
06Which has better profit margins — BGC or MKTX or GFI?
MarketAxess Holdings Inc.
(MKTX) is the more profitable company, earning 33. 6% net margin versus 5. 5% for BGC Group, Inc — meaning it keeps 33. 6% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: MKTX leads at 41. 7% versus 16. 8% for BGC. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — BGC 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 BGC or MKTX or GFI 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, Gold Fields Limited (GFI) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 0. 15x versus MarketAxess Holdings Inc. 's 3. 00x. A PEG below 1. 0 is traditionally considered the threshold for growth-adjusted undervaluation. On forward earnings alone, Gold Fields Limited (GFI) trades at 7. 1x forward P/E versus 18. 5x for MarketAxess Holdings Inc. — 11. 4x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for GFI: 30. 3% to $54. 42.
08Which pays a better dividend — BGC or MKTX or GFI?
In this comparison, MKTX (2.
0% yield), GFI (0. 9% yield) pay a dividend. BGC does not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
09Is BGC or MKTX or GFI better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, MarketAxess Holdings Inc.
(MKTX) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β -0. 28), 2. 0% yield). Both have compounded well over 10 years (MKTX: +40. 4%, BGC: +130. 0%), 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 BGC and MKTX and GFI?
These companies operate in different sectors (BGC (Financial Services) and MKTX (Financial Services) and GFI (Basic Materials)), which means they face different economic cycles, regulatory environments, and macro sensitivities — making direct comparison nuanced.
In terms of investment character: BGC is a small-cap high-growth stock; MKTX is a small-cap quality compounder stock; GFI is a mid-cap high-growth stock. MKTX, GFI pay a dividend while BGC 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.