EXPE vs AMZN

For growth investors, Amazon.

com, Inc. (AMZN) is the stronger pick with 12. 4% revenue growth year-over-year, versus 7. 6% for Expedia Group, Inc. (EXPE). Expedia Group, Inc. (EXPE) offers the better valuation at 25. 1x trailing P/E (12. 7x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Amazon. com, Inc. (AMZN) a "Buy" — based on 94 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, Expedia Group, Inc.

(EXPE) is the cheapest at 25. 1x versus Amazon. com, Inc. at 38. 3x. On forward P/E, Expedia Group, Inc. is actually cheaper at 12. 7x.

Over the past 5 years, Amazon.

com, Inc. (AMZN) delivered a total return of +66. 3%, compared to +50. 9% for Expedia Group, Inc. (EXPE). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: AMZN returned +715. 9% versus EXPE's +124. 1%. 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), Expedia Group, Inc.

(EXPE) is the lower-risk stock at 1. 47β versus Amazon. com, Inc. 's 1. 51β — meaning AMZN is approximately 3% more volatile than EXPE relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Amazon. com, Inc. (AMZN) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 37% versus 3% for Expedia Group, Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.

By revenue growth (latest reported year), Amazon.

com, Inc. (AMZN) is pulling ahead at 12. 4% versus 7. 6% for Expedia Group, Inc. (EXPE). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Amazon. com, Inc. grew EPS 29. 7% year-over-year, compared to 9. 6% for Expedia Group, Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, AMZN leads at 11. 7% 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.

Amazon.

com, Inc. (AMZN) is the more profitable company, earning 10. 8% net margin versus 8. 8% for Expedia Group, Inc. — meaning it keeps 10. 8% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: EXPE leads at 13. 4% versus 11. 2% for AMZN. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — EXPE leads at 84. 1%, 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, Expedia Group, Inc.

(EXPE) trades at 12. 7x forward P/E versus 35. 3x for Amazon. com, Inc. — 22. 6x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for AMZN: 11. 6% to $306. 77.

In this comparison, EXPE (0.

6% yield) pays a dividend. AMZN does not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.

For long-horizon retirement investors, Expedia Group, Inc.

(EXPE) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (0. 6% yield, +124. 1% 10Y return). Amazon. com, Inc. (AMZN) carries a higher beta of 1. 51 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (EXPE: +124. 1%, AMZN: +715. 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 Consumer Cyclical sector, making this a peer-level intra-sector comparison — the same macro tailwinds and headwinds will affect both.

EXPE pays a dividend while AMZN 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.