BWIN vs MMC

For growth investors, The Baldwin Insurance Group, Inc.

(BWIN) is the stronger pick with 9. 3% revenue growth year-over-year, versus 7. 6% for Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. (MMC). Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. (MMC) offers the better valuation at 21. 3x trailing P/E (16. 9x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate The Baldwin Insurance Group, Inc. (BWIN) a "Buy" — based on 9 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 forward P/E, The Baldwin Insurance Group, Inc.

is actually cheaper at 10. 5x — notably different from the trailing picture, reflecting expected earnings growth.

Over the past 5 years, Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc.

(MMC) delivered a total return of +36. 5%, compared to -30. 2% for The Baldwin Insurance Group, Inc. (BWIN). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: MMC returned +209. 8% versus BWIN's -30. 2%. 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), Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc.

(MMC) is the lower-risk stock at 0. 14β versus The Baldwin Insurance Group, Inc. 's 0. 52β — meaning BWIN is approximately 280% more volatile than MMC relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. (MMC) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 162% versus 163% for The Baldwin Insurance Group, Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.

By revenue growth (latest reported year), The Baldwin Insurance Group, Inc.

(BWIN) is pulling ahead at 9. 3% versus 7. 6% for Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. (MMC). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. grew EPS 8. 6% year-over-year, compared to -28. 2% for The Baldwin Insurance Group, Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, BWIN leads at 15. 8% annualised revenue growth. 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.

Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc.

(MMC) is the more profitable company, earning 16. 6% net margin versus -2. 2% for The Baldwin Insurance Group, Inc. — meaning it keeps 16. 6% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: MMC leads at 23. 8% versus 7. 3% for BWIN. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — MMC leads at 42. 8%, 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.

On forward earnings alone, The Baldwin Insurance Group, Inc.

(BWIN) trades at 10. 5x forward P/E versus 16. 9x for Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. — 6. 4x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for BWIN: 37. 0% to $28. 75.

In this comparison, MMC (1.

8% yield) pays a dividend. BWIN does not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.

For long-horizon retirement investors, Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc.

(MMC) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0. 14), 1. 8% yield, +209. 8% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (MMC: +209. 8%, BWIN: -30. 2%), 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.

MMC pays a dividend while BWIN 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.