GS vs MS

For growth investors, Morgan Stanley (MS) is the stronger pick with 14.

5% revenue growth year-over-year, versus 8. 9% for The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (GS). The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (GS) offers the better valuation at 16. 9x trailing P/E (12. 1x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Morgan Stanley (MS) a "Buy" — based on 53 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, The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.

(GS) is the cheapest at 16. 9x versus Morgan Stanley at 17. 8x. On forward P/E, The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. is actually cheaper at 12. 1x. The PEG ratio (P/E divided by earnings growth rate) is the most growth-adjusted single valuation metric: The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. wins at 0. 77x versus Morgan Stanley's 1. 47x — a PEG below 1. 0 traditionally signals the market is underpricing earnings growth.

Over the past 5 years, The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.

(GS) delivered a total return of +127. 0%, compared to +99. 2% for Morgan Stanley (MS). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: MS returned +518. 8% versus GS's +421. 9%. 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), Morgan Stanley (MS) is the lower-risk stock at 1.

46β versus The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. 's 1. 67β — meaning GS is approximately 14% more volatile than MS relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Morgan Stanley (MS) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 4% versus 5% for The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.

By revenue growth (latest reported year), Morgan Stanley (MS) is pulling ahead at 14.

5% versus 8. 9% for The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (GS). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Morgan Stanley grew EPS 28. 3% year-over-year, compared to 26. 6% for The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, MS leads at 9. 5% 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.

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.

(GS) is the more profitable company, earning 29. 5% net margin versus 25. 6% for Morgan Stanley — meaning it keeps 29. 5% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: GS leads at 37. 5% versus 33. 3% for MS. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — GS leads at 101. 9%, 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, The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (GS) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 0. 77x versus Morgan Stanley's 1. 47x. 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 12. 1x forward P/E versus 14. 1x for Morgan Stanley — 1. 9x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for GS: 30. 6% to $1130. 75.

All stocks in this comparison pay dividends.

Morgan Stanley (MS) offers the highest yield at 2. 3%, versus 1. 9% for The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (GS).

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.

3% yield, +518. 8% 10Y return). The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (GS) carries a higher beta of 1. 67 — 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: +518. 8%, GS: +421. 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.

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.