BMA vs GS

For growth investors, The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.

(GS) is the stronger pick with 17. 0% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -33. 3% for Banco Macro S. A. (BMA). Banco Macro S. A. (BMA) offers the better valuation at 21. 1x trailing P/E (0. 0x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Banco Macro S. A. (BMA) a "Buy" — based on 14 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, Banco Macro S.

A. (BMA) is the cheapest at 21. 1x versus The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. at 23. 1x. On forward P/E, Banco Macro S. A. is actually cheaper at 0. 0x. The PEG ratio (P/E divided by earnings growth rate) is the most growth-adjusted single valuation metric: Banco Macro S. A. wins at 0. 00x versus The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. 's 1. 13x — a PEG below 1. 0 traditionally signals the market is underpricing earnings growth.

Over the past 5 years, Banco Macro S.

A. (BMA) delivered a total return of +594. 5%, compared to +171. 1% for The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (GS). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: GS returned +536. 1% versus BMA's +56. 3%. 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), The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.

(GS) is the lower-risk stock at 1. 47β versus Banco Macro S. A. 's 1. 76β — meaning BMA is approximately 20% more volatile than GS relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Banco Macro S. A. (BMA) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 11% 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 -33. 3% for Banco Macro S. A. (BMA). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. grew EPS 77. 3% year-over-year, compared to -44. 6% for Banco Macro S. A.. 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.

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.

(GS) is the more profitable company, earning 11. 3% net margin versus 5. 0% for Banco Macro S. A. — meaning it keeps 11. 3% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: GS leads at 14. 5% versus 5. 6% for BMA. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — BMA leads at 68. 3%, 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, Banco Macro S. A. (BMA) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 0. 00x versus The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. 's 1. 13x. A PEG below 1. 0 is traditionally considered the threshold for growth-adjusted undervaluation. On forward earnings alone, Banco Macro S. A. (BMA) trades at 0. 0x forward P/E versus 15. 8x for The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. — 15. 8x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for BMA: 68. 9% to $130. 00.

All stocks in this comparison pay dividends.

Banco Macro S. A. (BMA) offers the highest yield at 6. 8%, versus 1. 4% for The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (GS).

For long-horizon retirement investors, The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.

(GS) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (1. 4% yield, +536. 1% 10Y return). Banco Macro S. A. (BMA) carries a higher beta of 1. 76 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (GS: +536. 1%, BMA: +56. 3%), 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: BMA is a small-cap income-oriented stock; GS 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.