FDS vs TRI

For growth investors, FactSet Research Systems Inc.

(FDS) is the stronger pick with 5. 4% revenue growth year-over-year, versus 4. 8% for Thomson Reuters Corporation (TRI). FactSet Research Systems Inc. (FDS) offers the better valuation at 14. 4x trailing P/E (12. 6x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Thomson Reuters Corporation (TRI) a "Buy" — based on 27 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, FactSet Research Systems Inc.

(FDS) is the cheapest at 14. 4x versus Thomson Reuters Corporation at 27. 3x. On forward P/E, FactSet Research Systems Inc. is actually cheaper at 12. 6x. The PEG ratio (P/E divided by earnings growth rate) is the most growth-adjusted single valuation metric: FactSet Research Systems Inc. wins at 1. 26x versus Thomson Reuters Corporation's 2. 81x — a reasonable growth-adjusted valuation.

Over the past 5 years, Thomson Reuters Corporation (TRI) delivered a total return of +7.

5%, compared to -27. 5% for FactSet Research Systems Inc. (FDS). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: TRI returned +156. 3% versus FDS's +68. 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), Thomson Reuters Corporation (TRI) is the lower-risk stock at 0.

33β versus FactSet Research Systems Inc. 's 0. 36β — meaning FDS is approximately 7% more volatile than TRI relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Thomson Reuters Corporation (TRI) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 18% versus 71% for FactSet Research Systems Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.

By revenue growth (latest reported year), FactSet Research Systems Inc.

(FDS) is pulling ahead at 5. 4% versus 4. 8% for Thomson Reuters Corporation (TRI). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: FactSet Research Systems Inc. grew EPS 11. 8% year-over-year, compared to -30. 5% for Thomson Reuters 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.

FactSet Research Systems Inc.

(FDS) is the more profitable company, earning 25. 7% net margin versus 20. 1% for Thomson Reuters Corporation — meaning it keeps 25. 7% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: FDS leads at 32. 2% versus 26. 3% for TRI. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — FDS leads at 52. 7%, 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, FactSet Research Systems Inc. (FDS) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 1. 26x versus Thomson Reuters Corporation's 2. 81x. A PEG below 1. 5 suggests fair-to-attractive pricing relative to expected growth. On forward earnings alone, FactSet Research Systems Inc. (FDS) trades at 12. 6x forward P/E versus 21. 1x for Thomson Reuters Corporation — 8. 5x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for TRI: 48. 1% to $137. 67.

All stocks in this comparison pay dividends.

Thomson Reuters Corporation (TRI) offers the highest yield at 2. 5%, versus 1. 9% for FactSet Research Systems Inc. (FDS).

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

33), 2. 5% yield, +156. 3% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (TRI: +156. 3%, FDS: +68. 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.

These companies operate in different sectors (FDS (Financial Services) and TRI (Industrials)), which means they face different economic cycles, regulatory environments, and macro sensitivities — making direct comparison nuanced.

In terms of investment character: FDS is a small-cap deep-value stock; TRI is a mid-cap quality compounder 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.