Shell Companies
Compare Stocks
5 / 10Stock Comparison
FTW vs BN vs GS vs MS vs BX
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Asset Management
Financial - Capital Markets
Financial - Capital Markets
Asset Management
FTW vs BN vs GS vs MS vs BX — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Shell Companies | Asset Management | Financial - Capital Markets | Financial - Capital Markets | Asset Management |
| Market Cap | $328M | $104.40B | $287.62B | $302.59B | $95.85B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $0.00 | $77.66B | $126.85B | $103.14B | $13.83B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $7M | $1.31B | $16.67B | $16.18B | $3.02B |
| Gross Margin | — | 40.0% | 41.1% | 55.6% | 86.0% |
| Operating Margin | — | 39.9% | 14.5% | 17.1% | 51.9% |
| Forward P/E | 48.0x | 16.7x | 15.6x | 16.0x | 20.5x |
| Total Debt | $0.00 | $263.42B | $616.93B | $360.49B | $13.31B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $973K | $16.24B | $182.09B | $75.74B | $2.63B |
FTW vs BN vs GS vs MS vs BX — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | Aug 24 | Mar 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| EQV Ventures Acquis… (FTW) | 100 | 111.1 | +11.1% |
| Brookfield Corporat… (BN) | 100 | 130.8 | +30.8% |
| The Goldman Sachs G… (GS) | 100 | 168.5 | +68.5% |
| Morgan Stanley (MS) | 100 | 160.7 | +60.7% |
| Blackstone Inc. (BX) | 100 | 79.6 | -20.4% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: FTW vs BN vs GS vs MS vs BX
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
FTW ranks third and is worth considering specifically for sleep-well-at-night and defensive.
- Lower volatility, beta 0.34, current ratio 1.51x
- Beta 0.34, current ratio 1.51x
- NIM 1.9% vs GS's 0.5%
- Beta 0.34 vs BN's 1.57
BN is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if quality and efficiency is your priority.
- Efficiency ratio 0.0% vs MS's 0.4% (lower = leaner)
- Efficiency ratio 0.0% vs MS's 0.4%
GS carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for growth exposure.
- Rev growth 17.0%, EPS growth 77.3%
- Lower P/E (15.6x vs 16.0x), PEG 1.12 vs 1.80
- 1.5% yield, 12-year raise streak, vs BX's 6.3%, (2 stocks pay no dividend)
- +70.6% vs BX's -6.5%
MS is the clearest fit if your priority is income & stability and long-term compounding.
- Dividend streak 11 yrs, beta 1.37, yield 2.0%
- 7.3% 10Y total return vs GS's 5.3%
BX is the clearest fit if your priority is valuation efficiency.
- PEG 0.98 vs MS's 1.80
- 21.6% NII/revenue growth vs BN's -9.7%
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 21.6% NII/revenue growth vs BN's -9.7% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (15.6x vs 16.0x), PEG 1.12 vs 1.80 | |
| Quality / Margins | Efficiency ratio 0.0% vs MS's 0.4% (lower = leaner) | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.34 vs BN's 1.57 | |
| Dividends | 1.5% yield, 12-year raise streak, vs BX's 6.3%, (2 stocks pay no dividend) | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +70.6% vs BX's -6.5% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | Efficiency ratio 0.0% vs MS's 0.4% |
FTW vs BN vs GS vs MS vs BX — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
Segment breakdown not available.
Segment breakdown not available.
FTW vs BN vs GS vs MS vs BX — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 5 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
BX leads in 2 of 6 categories
BN leads 1 • GS leads 1 • FTW leads 0 • MS leads 0 • 2 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
BX leads this category, winning 4 of 5 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
GS and FTW operate at a comparable scale, with $126.9B and $0 in trailing revenue. BX is the more profitable business, keeping 21.8% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to BN's 1.7%.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $0 | $77.7B | $126.9B | $103.1B | $13.8B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | -$9M | $32.1B | $23.4B | $26.3B | $7.2B |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | $7M | $1.3B | $16.7B | $16.2B | $3.0B |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | -$2M | -$2.8B | $15.8B | -$6.7B | $3.5B |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | — | +40.0% | +41.1% | +55.6% | +86.0% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | — | +39.9% | +14.5% | +17.1% | +51.9% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | — | +1.7% | +11.3% | +13.0% | +21.8% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | — | — | -12.1% | -2.0% | +12.6% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | — | — | — | — | — |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -170.0% | +73.1% | +45.8% | +48.9% | +41.3% |
Valuation Metrics
BN leads this category, winning 3 of 6 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 22.8x trailing earnings, GS trades at a 100% valuation discount to BN's 9999.0x P/E. Adjusting for growth (PEG ratio), BX offers better value at 1.51x vs MS's 2.69x — a lower PEG means you pay less per unit of expected earnings growth.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $328M | $104.4B | $287.6B | $302.6B | $95.8B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $327M | $351.6B | $722.5B | $587.3B | $106.5B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | 48.04x | 9999.00x | 22.84x | 23.92x | 31.53x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | — | 16.69x | 15.64x | 16.01x | 20.50x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | — | 1.63x | 2.69x | 1.51x |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 47.69x | 8.53x | 34.75x | 25.81x | 14.77x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | — | 1.34x | 2.27x | 2.93x | 6.93x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 0.95x | 0.66x | 2.53x | 2.91x | 4.37x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | — | — | — | — | 54.93x |
Profitability & Efficiency
BX leads this category, winning 6 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
MS delivers a 14.6% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $15 in annual profit, vs $1 for BN. BX carries lower financial leverage with a 0.61x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to GS's 5.06x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), BN scores 5/9 vs FTW's 3/9, reflecting solid financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | +2.0% | +0.8% | +12.6% | +14.6% | +14.3% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | +1.9% | +0.3% | +0.9% | +1.2% | +6.5% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | — | +5.6% | +1.9% | +2.9% | +16.1% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | -0.2% | +7.2% | +3.6% | +3.8% | +16.9% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 3 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 5 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | — | 1.59x | 5.06x | 3.42x | 0.61x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | -$973,483 | $247.2B | $434.8B | $284.7B | $10.7B |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $973,483 | $16.2B | $182.1B | $75.7B | $2.6B |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $0 | $263.4B | $616.9B | $360.5B | $13.3B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | — | 1.64x | 0.31x | 0.44x | 14.12x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
GS leads this category, winning 4 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in GS five years ago would be worth $26,440 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $15,900 for BX. Over the past 12 months, GS leads with a +70.6% total return vs BX's -6.5%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors GS at 43.5% vs BX's 18.4% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | +6.3% | -0.1% | +1.8% | +5.7% | -21.3% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | +7.4% | +25.5% | +70.6% | +63.0% | -6.5% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | — | +122.1% | +195.2% | +138.4% | +65.9% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | — | +89.3% | +164.4% | +136.2% | +59.0% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | — | +308.9% | +534.3% | +732.3% | +476.1% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | — | +30.5% | +43.5% | +33.6% | +18.4% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — FTW and MS each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
FTW is the less volatile stock with a 0.34 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than BN's 1.57 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. MS currently trades 97.6% from its 52-week high vs BX's 64.3% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 0.34x | 1.57x | 1.47x | 1.37x | 1.53x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $13.75 | $49.57 | $984.70 | $194.83 | $190.09 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $10.21 | $36.47 | $547.74 | $118.20 | $101.73 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +80.4% | +93.8% | +94.0% | +97.6% | +64.3% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 51.8 | 62.5 | 59.5 | 66.0 | 54.8 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 44K | 5.9M | 2.0M | 5.4M | 7.1M |
Analyst Outlook
Evenly matched — GS and BX each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: BN as "Buy", GS as "Hold", MS as "Buy", BX as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 27.8% upside for BX (target: $156) vs 7.6% for GS (target: $996). For income investors, BX offers the higher dividend yield at 6.30% vs GS's 1.46%.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | — | Buy | Hold | Buy | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | — | $54.40 | $995.89 | $205.75 | $156.29 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | — | 9 | 55 | 52 | 29 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | — | — | +1.5% | +2.0% | +6.3% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | — | 1 | 12 | 11 | 2 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | — | — | $13.48 | $3.81 | $7.70 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | 0.0% | 0.0% | +3.5% | +1.4% | +0.3% |
BX leads in 2 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow, Profitability & Efficiency). BN leads in 1 (Valuation Metrics). 2 tied.
FTW vs BN vs GS vs MS vs BX: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is FTW or BN or GS or MS or BX a better buy right now?
For growth investors, Blackstone Inc.
(BX) is the stronger pick with 21. 6% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -9. 7% for Brookfield Corporation (BN). The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (GS) offers the better valuation at 22. 8x trailing P/E (15. 6x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Brookfield Corporation (BN) 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.
02Which has the better valuation — FTW or BN or GS or MS or BX?
On trailing P/E, The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.
(GS) is the cheapest at 22. 8x versus Brookfield Corporation at 9999. 0x. On forward P/E, The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. is actually cheaper at 15. 6x. The PEG ratio (P/E divided by earnings growth rate) is the most growth-adjusted single valuation metric: Blackstone Inc. wins at 0. 98x versus Morgan Stanley's 1. 80x — a PEG below 1. 0 traditionally signals the market is underpricing earnings growth.
03Which is the better long-term investment — FTW or BN or GS or MS or BX?
Over the past 5 years, The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.
(GS) delivered a total return of +164. 4%, compared to +59. 0% for Blackstone Inc. (BX). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: MS returned +732. 3% versus BN's +308. 9%. Past returns do not guarantee future results, and the stock with the higher historical return may already have its best growth priced in.
04Which is safer — FTW or BN or GS or MS or BX?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), EQV Ventures Acquisition Corp.
(FTW) is the lower-risk stock at 0. 34β versus Brookfield Corporation's 1. 57β — meaning BN is approximately 359% more volatile than FTW relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Blackstone Inc. (BX) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 61% versus 5% for The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — FTW or BN or GS or MS or BX?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), Blackstone Inc.
(BX) is pulling ahead at 21. 6% versus -9. 7% for Brookfield Corporation (BN). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. grew EPS 77. 3% 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.
06Which has better profit margins — FTW or BN or GS or MS or BX?
Blackstone Inc.
(BX) is the more profitable company, earning 21. 8% net margin versus 0. 0% for EQV Ventures Acquisition Corp. — meaning it keeps 21. 8% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: BX leads at 51. 9% versus 0. 0% for FTW. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — BX leads at 86. 0%, 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.
07Is FTW or BN or GS or MS or BX more undervalued right now?
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, Blackstone Inc. (BX) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 0. 98x versus Morgan Stanley's 1. 80x. A PEG below 1. 0 is traditionally considered the threshold for growth-adjusted undervaluation. On forward earnings alone, The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (GS) trades at 15. 6x forward P/E versus 20. 5x for Blackstone Inc. — 4. 9x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for BX: 27. 8% to $156. 29.
08Which pays a better dividend — FTW or BN or GS or MS or BX?
In this comparison, BX (6.
3% yield), MS (2. 0% yield), GS (1. 5% yield) pay a dividend. FTW, BN do not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
09Is FTW or BN or GS or MS or BX better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, Morgan Stanley (MS) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (2.
0% yield, +732. 3% 10Y return). 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 (MS: +732. 3%, 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.
10What are the main differences between FTW and BN and GS and MS and BX?
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: FTW is a small-cap quality compounder stock; BN is a mid-cap quality compounder stock; GS is a large-cap high-growth stock; MS is a large-cap high-growth stock; BX is a mid-cap high-growth stock. GS, MS, BX pay a dividend while FTW, 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.
Find Stocks Like These
Explore pre-built screens for each stock's profile, or build a custom screen to find stocks that outperform all of them.
You Might Also Compare
Based on how these companies actually compete and overlap — not just which sector they're filed under.