Asset Management
Build Your Comparison
Side-by-side financial analysisStock Comparison
LEO vs GS
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Financial - Capital Markets
LEO vs GS — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | ||
|---|---|---|
| Industry | Asset Management | Financial - Capital Markets |
| Market Cap | $397M | $337.53B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $54M | $125.10B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $60M | $17.18B |
| Gross Margin | 67.7% | 47.5% |
| Operating Margin | 114.4% | 17.5% |
| Forward P/E | 15.9x | 17.9x |
| Total Debt | $139M | $609.53B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $107K | $164.26B |
LEO vs GS — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | Jun 20 | Jun 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| BNY Mellon Strategi… (LEO) | 100 | 82.2 | -17.8% |
| The Goldman Sachs G… (GS) | 100 | 537.8 | +437.8% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: LEO vs GS
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
LEO carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for income & stability and sleep-well-at-night.
- Dividend streak 1 yrs, beta 0.25, yield 3.8%
- Lower volatility, beta 0.25, Low D/E 32.8%, current ratio 1.88x
- Beta 0.25, yield 3.8%, current ratio 1.88x
GS is the clearest fit if your priority is growth exposure and long-term compounding.
- Rev growth -1.4%, EPS growth 26.6%
- 6.7% 10Y total return vs LEO's 8.0%
- -1.4% NII/revenue growth vs LEO's -107.1%
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | -1.4% NII/revenue growth vs LEO's -107.1% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (15.9x vs 17.9x) | |
| Quality / Margins | 111.0% margin vs GS's 13.7% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.25 vs GS's 1.60, lower leverage | |
| Dividends | 3.8% yield, 1-year raise streak, vs GS's 1.6% | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +72.7% vs LEO's +15.1% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 9.2% ROA vs GS's 1.0%, ROIC -1.7% vs 2.2% |
LEO vs GS — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
Segment breakdown not available.
LEO vs GS — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 2 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
LEO leads this category, winning 4 of 5 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
GS is the larger business by revenue, generating $125.1B annually — 2298.3x LEO's $54M. LEO is the more profitable business, keeping 111.0% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to GS's 13.7%.
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $54M | $125.1B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $37M | $24.0B |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | $60M | $17.2B |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | $25M | -$47.2B |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +67.7% | +47.5% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | +114.4% | +17.5% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | +111.0% | +13.7% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | +46.7% | -37.7% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | — | — |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -140.7% | +45.8% |
Valuation Metrics
LEO leads this category, winning 3 of 3 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $397M | $337.5B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $536M | $782.8B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | -30.38x | 20.71x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | 15.95x | 17.93x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | 1.32x |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | — | 32.57x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | — | 2.70x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 0.94x | 2.70x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | 31.41x | — |
Profitability & Efficiency
LEO leads this category, winning 6 of 8 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
LEO delivers a 13.9% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $14 in annual profit, vs $14 for GS. LEO carries lower financial leverage with a 0.33x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to GS's 4.88x.
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | +13.9% | +13.6% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | +9.2% | +1.0% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | -1.7% | +2.2% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | -2.2% | +4.0% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 5 | 5 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.33x | 4.88x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $139M | $445.3B |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $106,568 | $164.3B |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $139M | $609.5B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | 5.53x | 0.33x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
GS leads this category, winning 6 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in GS five years ago would be worth $30,053 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $8,810 for LEO. Over the past 12 months, GS leads with a +72.7% total return vs LEO's +15.1%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors GS at 48.1% vs LEO's 5.5% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | +2.5% | +17.2% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | +15.1% | +72.7% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +17.4% | +224.8% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -11.9% | +200.5% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +8.0% | +666.8% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | +5.5% | +48.1% |
Risk & Volatility
LEO leads this category, winning 2 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
LEO is the less volatile stock with a 0.25 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than GS's 1.60 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500.
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 0.25x | 1.60x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $6.54 | $1095.89 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $5.71 | $609.59 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +97.5% | +97.0% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 48.4 | 57.3 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 209K | 1.9M |
Analyst Outlook
Evenly matched — LEO and GS each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
For income investors, LEO offers the higher dividend yield at 3.76% vs GS's 1.56%.
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | — | Hold |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | — | $972.70 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | — | 55 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | +3.8% | +1.6% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 1 | 14 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | $0.24 | $16.62 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | 0.0% | +3.7% |
LEO leads in 4 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow, Valuation Metrics). GS leads in 1 (Total Returns). 1 tied.
LEO vs GS: Frequently Asked Questions
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is LEO or GS a better buy right now?
For growth investors, The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.
(GS) is the stronger pick with -1. 4% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -107. 1% for BNY Mellon Strategic Municipals, Inc. (LEO). The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (GS) offers the better valuation at 20. 7x trailing P/E (17. 9x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (GS) a "Hold" — based on 55 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 — LEO or GS?
On forward P/E, BNY Mellon Strategic Municipals, Inc.
is actually cheaper at 15. 9x — notably different from the trailing picture, reflecting expected earnings growth.
03Which is the better long-term investment — LEO or GS?
Over the past 5 years, The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.
(GS) delivered a total return of +200. 5%, compared to -11. 9% for BNY Mellon Strategic Municipals, Inc. (LEO). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: GS returned +666. 8% versus LEO's +8. 0%. 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 — LEO or GS?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), BNY Mellon Strategic Municipals, Inc.
(LEO) is the lower-risk stock at 0. 25β versus The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. 's 1. 60β — meaning GS is approximately 535% more volatile than LEO relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, BNY Mellon Strategic Municipals, Inc. (LEO) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 33% versus 5% for The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — LEO or GS?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.
(GS) is pulling ahead at -1. 4% versus -107. 1% for BNY Mellon Strategic Municipals, Inc. (LEO). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. grew EPS 26. 6% year-over-year, compared to -117. 8% for BNY Mellon Strategic Municipals, Inc.. 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 — LEO or GS?
BNY Mellon Strategic Municipals, Inc.
(LEO) is the more profitable company, earning 252. 7% net margin versus 13. 7% for The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. — meaning it keeps 252. 7% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: LEO leads at 252. 7% versus 17. 5% for GS. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — LEO leads at 254. 2%, 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 LEO or GS more undervalued right now?
On forward earnings alone, BNY Mellon Strategic Municipals, Inc.
(LEO) trades at 15. 9x forward P/E versus 17. 9x for The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. — 2. 0x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis.
08Which pays a better dividend — LEO or GS?
All stocks in this comparison pay dividends.
BNY Mellon Strategic Municipals, Inc. (LEO) offers the highest yield at 3. 8%, versus 1. 6% for The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (GS).
09Is LEO or GS better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, BNY Mellon Strategic Municipals, Inc.
(LEO) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0. 25), 3. 8% yield). The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (GS) carries a higher beta of 1. 60 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (LEO: +8. 0%, GS: +666. 8%), 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 LEO and GS?
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: LEO is a small-cap income-oriented stock; GS is a large-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.
You Might Also Compare
Based on how these companies actually compete and overlap — not just which sector they're filed under.
Compare GS vs MS
MS is one of the most direct listed alternatives to GS.
Compare LEO vs BK
Compare LEO against another closely matched public peer instead of a generic same-sector name.
Expand With MS + ICE
MS and ICE are the strongest missing peers across the current compare set.