CUB vs BN vs KKR vs APO

For growth investors, Apollo Global Management, Inc.

(APO) is the stronger pick with 16. 0% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -100. 0% for Lionheart Holdings (CUB). Apollo Global Management, Inc. (APO) offers the better valuation at 17. 6x trailing P/E (14. 4x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Lionheart Holdings (CUB) a "Buy" — based on 11 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. 6x versus Brookfield Corporation at 9999. 0x. On forward P/E, Lionheart Holdings is actually cheaper at 3. 7x — 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: Lionheart Holdings wins at 0. 15x versus Apollo Global Management, Inc. 's 0. 19x — a PEG below 1. 0 traditionally signals the market is underpricing earnings growth.

Over the past 5 years, Apollo Global Management, Inc.

(APO) delivered a total return of +135. 1%, compared to +8. 2% for Lionheart Holdings (CUB). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: APO returned +759. 2% versus CUB's +21. 7%. 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), Lionheart Holdings (CUB) is the lower-risk stock at -0.

02β versus KKR & Co. Inc. 's 1. 70β — meaning KKR is approximately -9066% more volatile than CUB relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Apollo Global Management, Inc. (APO) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 31% versus 159% for Brookfield Corporation — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.

By revenue growth (latest reported year), Apollo Global Management, Inc.

(APO) is pulling ahead at 16. 0% versus -100. 0% for Lionheart Holdings (CUB). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Lionheart Holdings grew EPS 290. 0% year-over-year, compared to -99. 8% for Brookfield Corporation. 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.

Apollo Global Management, Inc.

(APO) is the more profitable company, earning 14. 8% net margin versus 0. 0% for Lionheart Holdings — meaning it keeps 14. 8% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: BN leads at 39. 9% versus 0. 0% for CUB. 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, Lionheart Holdings (CUB) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 0. 15x versus Apollo Global Management, Inc. 's 0. 19x. A PEG below 1. 0 is traditionally considered the threshold for growth-adjusted undervaluation. On forward earnings alone, Lionheart Holdings (CUB) trades at 3. 7x forward P/E versus 16. 7x for Brookfield Corporation — 13. 0x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for KKR: 42. 5% to $143. 00.

In this comparison, APO (1.

7% yield), KKR (0. 8% yield) pay a dividend. CUB, BN do not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.

For long-horizon retirement investors, Lionheart Holdings (CUB) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β -0.

02)). Brookfield Corporation (BN) carries a higher beta of 1. 57 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (CUB: +21. 7%, BN: +308. 9%), 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: CUB is a small-cap quality compounder stock; BN is a mid-cap quality compounder stock; KKR is a mid-cap quality compounder stock; APO is a mid-cap high-growth stock. KKR, APO pay a dividend while CUB, BN do 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.