Build Your Comparison

Side-by-side financial analysis
LEO logo
LEO
GS logo
GS
MS logo
MS
ICE logo
ICE
MSCI logo
MSCI
Try popular comparisons:

Stock Comparison

LEO vs GS vs MS vs ICE vs MSCI

Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.

Live fundamentals10-year financials5-year price chart
LEO
BNY Mellon Strategic Municipals, Inc.

Asset Management

Financial ServicesNYSE • US
Market Cap$397M
5Y Perf.-17.8%
GS
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.

Financial - Capital Markets

Financial ServicesNYSE • US
Market Cap$337.53B
5Y Perf.+437.8%
MS
Morgan Stanley

Financial - Capital Markets

Financial ServicesNYSE • US
Market Cap$340.97B
5Y Perf.+343.1%
ICE
Intercontinental Exchange, Inc.

Financial - Data & Stock Exchanges

Financial ServicesNYSE • US
Market Cap$79.60B
5Y Perf.+53.4%
MSCI
MSCI Inc.

Financial - Data & Stock Exchanges

Financial ServicesNYSE • US
Market Cap$43.62B
5Y Perf.+4.1%

LEO vs GS vs MS vs ICE vs MSCI — Key Financials

Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.

Company Snapshot
LEO logoLEO
GS logoGS
MS logoMS
ICE logoICE
MSCI logoMSCI
IndustryAsset ManagementFinancial - Capital MarketsFinancial - Capital MarketsFinancial - Data & Stock ExchangesFinancial - Data & Stock Exchanges
Market Cap$397M$337.53B$340.97B$79.60B$43.62B
Revenue (TTM)$54M$125.10B$114.98B$12.64B$3.24B
Net Income (TTM)$60M$17.18B$16.86B$3.30B$1.32B
Gross Margin67.7%47.5%57.1%61.9%82.9%
Operating Margin114.4%17.5%19.1%38.7%55.4%
Forward P/E15.9x17.9x18.0x17.3x30.5x
Total Debt$139M$609.53B$475.56B$20.28B$6.31B
Cash & Equiv.$107K$164.26B$111.69B$837M$515M

LEO vs GS vs MS vs ICE vs MSCILong-Term Stock Performance

Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.

LEO
GS
MS
ICE
MSCI
StockJun 20Jun 26Return
BNY Mellon Strategi… (LEO)10082.2-17.8%
The Goldman Sachs G… (GS)100537.8+437.8%
Morgan Stanley (MS)100443.1+343.1%
Intercontinental Ex… (ICE)100153.4+53.4%
MSCI Inc. (MSCI)100179.5+79.5%

Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.

Quick Verdict: LEO vs GS vs MS vs ICE vs MSCI

Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.

Bottom line: LEO leads in 3 of 7 categories (5-stock set), making it the strongest pick for valuation and capital efficiency and capital preservation and lower volatility. Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. is the stronger pick specifically for profitability and margin quality and operational efficiency and capital deployment. GS and MS also each lead in at least one category. As sector peers, any of these can serve as alternatives in the same allocation.
🥇LEO emerged as the overall leader. Track its performance:
LEO
BNY Mellon Strategic Municipals, Inc.
The Banking Pick

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
  • NIM 3.4% vs MS's 0.7%
Best for: income & stability and sleep-well-at-night
GS
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.
The Banking Pick

GS ranks third and is worth considering specifically for valuation efficiency.

  • PEG 1.14 vs ICE's 1.95
  • +72.7% vs ICE's -20.4%
Best for: valuation efficiency
MS
Morgan Stanley
The Banking Pick

MS is the clearest fit if your priority is growth exposure and long-term compounding.

  • Rev growth 11.5%, EPS growth 28.3%
  • 8.5% 10Y total return vs GS's 6.7%
  • 11.5% NII/revenue growth vs LEO's -107.1%
Best for: growth exposure and long-term compounding
ICE
Intercontinental Exchange, Inc.
The Banking Pick

ICE is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if quality and efficiency is your priority.

  • Efficiency ratio 0.2% vs MS's 0.4% (lower = leaner)
  • Efficiency ratio 0.2% vs MS's 0.4%
Best for: quality and efficiency
MSCI
MSCI Inc.
The Financial Play

Among these 5 stocks, MSCI doesn't own a clear edge in any measured category.

Best for: financial services exposure
See the full category breakdown
CategoryWinnerWhy
GrowthMS logoMS11.5% NII/revenue growth vs LEO's -107.1%
ValueLEO logoLEOLower P/E (15.9x vs 30.5x)
Quality / MarginsICE logoICEEfficiency ratio 0.2% vs MS's 0.4% (lower = leaner)
Stability / SafetyLEO logoLEOBeta 0.25 vs GS's 1.60, lower leverage
DividendsLEO logoLEO3.8% yield, 1-year raise streak, vs GS's 1.6%
Momentum (1Y)GS logoGS+72.7% vs ICE's -20.4%
Efficiency (ROA)ICE logoICEEfficiency ratio 0.2% vs MS's 0.4%

LEO vs GS vs MS vs ICE vs MSCI — Revenue Breakdown by Segment

How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units

Discover the Fintech Stocks Theme

These companies are key players in the Fintech Stocks ecosystem. See how they stack up against the rest of the sector.

Explore Theme
LEOBNY Mellon Strategic Municipals, Inc.

Segment breakdown not available.

GSThe Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.
FY 2025
Global Markets
71.1%$41.5B
Investment Management
28.6%$16.7B
Platform Solutions
0.3%$151M
MSMorgan Stanley
FY 2025
Institutional Securities Segment
46.4%$33.1B
Wealth Management Segment
44.5%$31.8B
Investment Management Segment
9.1%$6.5B
ICEIntercontinental Exchange, Inc.
FY 2025
Fixed Income And Data Services Segment
51.1%$1.4B
Exchanges Segment
38.8%$1.0B
Mortgage Technology Segment
10.1%$269M
MSCIMSCI Inc.
FY 2025
Index
64.3%$1.8B
Analytics
25.7%$714M
All Other Segments
10.0%$279M

LEO vs GS vs MS vs ICE vs MSCI — Financial Metrics

Side-by-side numbers across 5 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.

BEST OVERALLMSCILAGGINGICE

Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)

MSCI leads this category, winning 3 of 5 comparable metrics.

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%.

MetricLEO logoLEOBNY Mellon Strate…GS logoGSThe Goldman Sachs…MS logoMSMorgan StanleyICE logoICEIntercontinental …MSCI logoMSCIMSCI Inc.
RevenueTrailing 12 months$54M$125.1B$115.0B$12.6B$3.2B
EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax$37M$24.0B$26.6B$6.5B$2.0B
Net IncomeAfter-tax profit$60M$17.2B$16.9B$3.3B$1.3B
Free Cash FlowCash after capex$25M-$47.2B-$17.9B$4.3B$1.5B
Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue+67.7%+47.5%+57.1%+61.9%+82.9%
Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue+114.4%+17.5%+19.1%+38.7%+55.4%
Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue+111.0%+13.7%+14.7%+26.1%+40.7%
FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue+46.7%-37.7%-15.6%+33.9%+47.4%
Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year
EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year-140.7%+45.8%+48.9%+23.1%+49.1%
MSCI leads this category, winning 3 of 5 comparable metrics.

Valuation Metrics

LEO leads this category, winning 3 of 7 comparable metrics.

At 20.7x trailing earnings, GS trades at a 46% valuation discount to MSCI's 38.5x P/E. Adjusting for growth (PEG ratio), GS offers better value at 1.32x vs ICE's 2.74x — a lower PEG means you pay less per unit of expected earnings growth.

MetricLEO logoLEOBNY Mellon Strate…GS logoGSThe Goldman Sachs…MS logoMSMorgan StanleyICE logoICEIntercontinental …MSCI logoMSCIMSCI Inc.
Market CapShares × price$397M$337.5B$341.0B$79.6B$43.6B
Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash$536M$782.8B$704.8B$99.0B$49.4B
Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS-30.38x20.71x20.98x24.36x38.50x
Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est.15.95x17.93x18.00x17.34x30.47x
PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate1.32x2.19x2.74x2.27x
EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple32.57x26.49x15.34x25.57x
Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue2.70x2.97x6.30x13.91x
Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share0.94x2.70x3.03x2.77x
Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF31.41x7.40x18.56x28.16x
LEO leads this category, winning 3 of 7 comparable metrics.

Profitability & Efficiency

MSCI leads this category, winning 4 of 9 comparable metrics.

MS delivers a 15.3% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $15 in annual profit, vs $12 for ICE. 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. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), ICE scores 9/9 vs GS's 5/9, reflecting strong financial health.

MetricLEO logoLEOBNY Mellon Strate…GS logoGSThe Goldman Sachs…MS logoMSMorgan StanleyICE logoICEIntercontinental …MSCI logoMSCIMSCI Inc.
ROE (TTM)Return on equity+13.9%+13.6%+15.3%+11.6%
ROA (TTM)Return on assets+9.2%+1.0%+1.2%+2.3%+24.0%
ROICReturn on invested capital-1.7%+2.2%+3.1%+7.5%+34.9%
ROCEReturn on capital employed-2.2%+4.0%+3.3%+9.5%+44.3%
Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–955798
Debt / EquityFinancial leverage0.33x4.88x4.22x0.70x
Net DebtTotal debt minus cash$139M$445.3B$363.9B$19.4B$5.8B
Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets$106,568$164.3B$111.7B$837M$515M
Total DebtShort + long-term debt$139M$609.5B$475.6B$20.3B$6.3B
Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense5.53x0.33x0.45x6.53x7.67x
MSCI leads this category, winning 4 of 9 comparable metrics.

Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)

GS leads this category, winning 4 of 6 comparable metrics.

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 ICE's -20.4%. 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.

MetricLEO logoLEOBNY Mellon Strate…GS logoGSThe Goldman Sachs…MS logoMSMorgan StanleyICE logoICEIntercontinental …MSCI logoMSCIMSCI Inc.
YTD ReturnYear-to-date+2.5%+17.2%+18.8%-11.8%+6.7%
1-Year ReturnPast 12 months+15.1%+72.7%+65.3%-20.4%+9.3%
3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends+17.4%+224.8%+157.5%+34.6%+30.7%
5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends-11.9%+200.5%+154.7%+30.9%+28.2%
10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends+8.0%+666.8%+854.4%+195.3%+744.0%
CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return+5.5%+48.1%+37.1%+10.4%+9.3%
GS leads this category, winning 4 of 6 comparable metrics.

Risk & Volatility

Evenly matched — LEO and MS each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.

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. MS currently trades 97.7% from its 52-week high vs ICE's 74.2% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.

MetricLEO logoLEOBNY Mellon Strate…GS logoGSThe Goldman Sachs…MS logoMSMorgan StanleyICE logoICEIntercontinental …MSCI logoMSCIMSCI Inc.
Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 5000.25x1.60x1.40x0.35x0.51x
52-Week HighHighest price in past year$6.54$1095.89$219.16$189.35$644.64
52-Week LowLowest price in past year$5.71$609.59$128.81$136.67$501.08
% of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak+97.5%+97.0%+97.7%+74.2%+92.9%
RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–10048.457.362.231.947.6
Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded209K1.9M4.5M3.2M535K
Evenly matched — LEO and MS each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.

Analyst Outlook

Evenly matched — LEO and GS each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.

Analyst consensus: GS as "Hold", MS as "Buy", ICE as "Buy", MSCI as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 38.0% upside for ICE (target: $194) vs -8.5% for GS (target: $973). For income investors, LEO offers the higher dividend yield at 3.76% vs MSCI's 1.20%.

MetricLEO logoLEOBNY Mellon Strate…GS logoGSThe Goldman Sachs…MS logoMSMorgan StanleyICE logoICEIntercontinental …MSCI logoMSCIMSCI Inc.
Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sellHoldBuyBuyBuy
Price TargetConsensus 12-month target$972.70$201.25$194.00$688.00
# AnalystsCovering analysts55523627
Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price+3.8%+1.6%+1.9%+1.4%+1.2%
Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises114121312
Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS$0.24$16.62$4.14$1.93$7.20
Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap0.0%+3.7%+1.7%+1.7%+5.7%
Evenly matched — LEO and GS each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Key Takeaway

MSCI leads in 2 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow, Profitability & Efficiency). LEO leads in 1 (Valuation Metrics). 2 tied.

Best OverallMSCI Inc. (MSCI)Leads 2 of 6 categories
Loading custom metrics...

LEO vs GS vs MS vs ICE vs MSCI: Key Questions Answered

10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily

01

Is LEO or GS or MS or ICE or MSCI a better buy right now?

For growth investors, Morgan Stanley (MS) is the stronger pick with 11.

5% 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 Morgan Stanley (MS) a "Buy" — based on 52 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.

02

Which has the better valuation — LEO or GS or MS or ICE or MSCI?

On trailing P/E, The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.

(GS) is the cheapest at 20. 7x versus MSCI Inc. at 38. 5x. 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. 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 1. 14x versus Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. 's 1. 95x — a reasonable growth-adjusted valuation.

03

Which is the better long-term investment — LEO or GS or MS or ICE or MSCI?

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: MS returned +854. 4% 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.

04

Which is safer — LEO or GS or MS or ICE or MSCI?

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.

05

Which is growing faster — LEO or GS or MS or ICE or MSCI?

By revenue growth (latest reported year), Morgan Stanley (MS) is pulling ahead at 11.

5% versus -107. 1% for BNY Mellon Strategic Municipals, Inc. (LEO). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Morgan Stanley grew EPS 28. 3% 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.

06

Which has better profit margins — LEO or GS or MS or ICE or MSCI?

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.

07

Is LEO or GS or MS or ICE or MSCI 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, The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (GS) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 1. 14x versus Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. 's 1. 95x. A PEG below 1. 5 suggests fair-to-attractive pricing relative to expected growth. On forward earnings alone, BNY Mellon Strategic Municipals, Inc. (LEO) trades at 15. 9x forward P/E versus 30. 5x for MSCI Inc. — 14. 5x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for ICE: 38. 0% to $194. 00.

08

Which pays a better dividend — LEO or GS or MS or ICE or MSCI?

All stocks in this comparison pay dividends.

BNY Mellon Strategic Municipals, Inc. (LEO) offers the highest yield at 3. 8%, versus 1. 2% for MSCI Inc. (MSCI).

09

Is LEO or GS or MS or ICE or MSCI better for a retirement portfolio?

For long-horizon retirement investors, MSCI Inc.

(MSCI) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0. 51), 1. 2% yield, +744. 0% 10Y return). 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 (MSCI: +744. 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.

10

What are the main differences between LEO and GS and MS and ICE and MSCI?

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; MS is a large-cap quality compounder stock; ICE is a mid-cap quality compounder stock; MSCI 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.

You Might Also Compare

Based on how these companies actually compete and overlap — not just which sector they're filed under.