Asset Management
Build Your Comparison
Side-by-side financial analysisStock Comparison
LEO vs MS vs GS vs ICE vs MSCI vs KO vs JPM
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Financial - Capital Markets
Financial - Capital Markets
Financial - Data & Stock Exchanges
Financial - Data & Stock Exchanges
Beverages - Non-Alcoholic
Banks - Diversified
LEO vs MS vs GS vs ICE vs MSCI vs KO vs JPM — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Asset Management | Financial - Capital Markets | Financial - Capital Markets | Financial - Data & Stock Exchanges | Financial - Data & Stock Exchanges | Beverages - Non-Alcoholic | Banks - Diversified |
| Market Cap | $397M | $340.97B | $337.53B | $79.60B | $43.62B | $355.61B | $896.00B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $54M | $114.98B | $125.10B | $12.64B | $3.24B | $49.28B | $280.33B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $60M | $16.86B | $17.18B | $3.30B | $1.32B | $13.70B | $57.05B |
| Gross Margin | 67.7% | 57.1% | 47.5% | 61.9% | 82.9% | 61.7% | 60.0% |
| Operating Margin | 114.4% | 19.1% | 17.5% | 38.7% | 55.4% | 29.3% | 25.9% |
| Forward P/E | 15.9x | 18.0x | 17.9x | 17.3x | 30.5x | 25.3x | 14.4x |
| Total Debt | $139M | $475.56B | $609.53B | $20.28B | $6.31B | $45.49B | $942.38B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $107K | $111.69B | $164.26B | $837M | $515M | $10.27B | $343.34B |
LEO vs MS vs GS vs ICE vs MSCI vs KO vs JPM — 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% |
| Morgan Stanley (MS) | 100 | 443.1 | +343.1% |
| The Goldman Sachs G… (GS) | 100 | 537.8 | +437.8% |
| Intercontinental Ex… (ICE) | 100 | 153.4 | +53.4% |
| MSCI Inc. (MSCI) | 100 | 179.5 | +79.5% |
| The Coca-Cola Compa… (KO) | 100 | 184.9 | +84.9% |
| JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM) | 100 | 341.0 | +241.0% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: LEO vs MS vs GS vs ICE vs MSCI vs KO vs JPM
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
- NIM 3.4% vs MS's 0.7%
- 111.0% margin vs GS's 13.7%
MS is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if growth exposure and long-term compounding is your priority.
- 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%
GS ranks third and is worth considering specifically for momentum.
- +72.7% vs ICE's -20.4%
ICE doesn't hold a clear category lead here; it's more of a secondary option in this specific comparison.
MSCI is the clearest fit if your priority is efficiency.
- 24.0% ROA vs GS's 1.0%, ROIC 34.9% vs 2.2%
In this particular matchup, KO is outpaced on most metrics by others in the set.
JPM is the clearest fit if your priority is valuation efficiency.
- PEG 0.81 vs KO's 2.26
- Lower P/E (14.4x vs 25.3x), PEG 0.81 vs 2.26
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 11.5% NII/revenue growth vs LEO's -107.1% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (14.4x vs 25.3x), PEG 0.81 vs 2.26 | |
| 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 KO's 2.5% | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +72.7% vs ICE's -20.4% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 24.0% ROA vs GS's 1.0%, ROIC 34.9% vs 2.2% |
LEO vs MS vs GS vs ICE vs MSCI vs KO vs JPM — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
Segment breakdown not available.
LEO vs MS vs GS vs ICE vs MSCI vs KO vs JPM — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 7 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
MSCI leads in 1 of 6 categories
GS leads 1 • KO leads 1 • LEO leads 0 • MS leads 0 • ICE leads 0 • JPM leads 0 • 3 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
MSCI leads this category, winning 3 of 5 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
JPM is the larger business by revenue, generating $280.3B annually — 5150.3x 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 | $115.0B | $125.1B | $12.6B | $3.2B | $49.3B | $280.3B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $37M | $26.6B | $24.0B | $6.5B | $2.0B | $15.5B | $81.4B |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | $60M | $16.9B | $17.2B | $3.3B | $1.3B | $13.7B | $57.0B |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | $25M | -$17.9B | -$47.2B | $4.3B | $1.5B | $12.6B | $100.9B |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +67.7% | +57.1% | +47.5% | +61.9% | +82.9% | +61.7% | +60.0% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | +114.4% | +19.1% | +17.5% | +38.7% | +55.4% | +29.3% | +25.9% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | +111.0% | +14.7% | +13.7% | +26.1% | +40.7% | +27.8% | +20.4% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | +46.7% | -15.6% | -37.7% | +33.9% | +47.4% | +25.5% | +36.0% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | — | — | — | — | — | +12.1% | — |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -140.7% | +48.9% | +45.8% | +23.1% | +49.1% | +18.2% | +16.0% |
Valuation Metrics
Evenly matched — LEO and JPM each lead in 2 of 7 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 16.0x trailing earnings, JPM trades at a 58% valuation discount to MSCI's 38.5x P/E. Adjusting for growth (PEG ratio), JPM offers better value at 0.90x vs ICE's 2.74x — a lower PEG means you pay less per unit of expected earnings growth.
| Metric | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $397M | $341.0B | $337.5B | $79.6B | $43.6B | $355.6B | $896.0B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $536M | $704.8B | $782.8B | $99.0B | $49.4B | $390.8B | $1.50T |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | -30.38x | 20.98x | 20.71x | 24.36x | 38.50x | 27.18x | 16.00x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | 15.95x | 18.00x | 17.93x | 17.34x | 30.47x | 25.27x | 14.40x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | 2.19x | 1.32x | 2.74x | 2.27x | 2.43x | 0.90x |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | — | 26.49x | 32.57x | 15.34x | 25.57x | 26.39x | 18.36x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | — | 2.97x | 2.70x | 6.30x | 13.91x | 7.42x | 3.20x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 0.94x | 3.03x | 2.70x | 2.77x | — | 10.40x | 2.47x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | 31.41x | 7.40x | — | 18.56x | 28.16x | 67.15x | 8.88x |
Profitability & Efficiency
Evenly matched — LEO and MSCI each lead in 3 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
KO delivers a 41.1% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $41 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 JPM's 5/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | +13.9% | +15.3% | +13.6% | +11.6% | — | +41.1% | +15.9% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | +9.2% | +1.2% | +1.0% | +2.3% | +24.0% | +13.1% | +1.3% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | -1.7% | +3.1% | +2.2% | +7.5% | +34.9% | +15.8% | +4.5% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | -2.2% | +3.3% | +4.0% | +9.5% | +44.3% | +17.3% | +8.9% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 5 | 7 | 5 | 9 | 8 | 7 | 5 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.33x | 4.22x | 4.88x | 0.70x | — | 1.33x | 2.60x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $139M | $363.9B | $445.3B | $19.4B | $5.8B | $35.2B | $599.0B |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $106,568 | $111.7B | $164.3B | $837M | $515M | $10.3B | $343.3B |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $139M | $475.6B | $609.5B | $20.3B | $6.3B | $45.5B | $942.4B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | 5.53x | 0.45x | 0.33x | 6.53x | 7.67x | 10.70x | 0.74x |
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 $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.
| Metric | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | +2.5% | +18.8% | +17.2% | -11.8% | +6.7% | +20.3% | -0.5% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | +15.1% | +65.3% | +72.7% | -20.4% | +9.3% | +17.2% | +21.8% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +17.4% | +157.5% | +224.8% | +34.6% | +30.7% | +47.0% | +138.2% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -11.9% | +154.7% | +200.5% | +30.9% | +28.2% | +65.6% | +118.2% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +8.0% | +854.4% | +666.8% | +195.3% | +744.0% | +121.1% | +465.8% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | +5.5% | +37.1% | +48.1% | +10.4% | +9.3% | +13.7% | +33.6% |
Risk & Volatility
KO leads this category, winning 2 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
KO is the less volatile stock with a -0.20 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. KO currently trades 98.3% from its 52-week high vs ICE's 74.2% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 0.25x | 1.40x | 1.60x | 0.35x | 0.51x | -0.20x | 0.94x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $6.54 | $219.16 | $1095.89 | $189.35 | $644.64 | $84.04 | $337.25 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $5.71 | $128.81 | $609.59 | $136.67 | $501.08 | $65.35 | $262.71 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +97.5% | +97.7% | +97.0% | +74.2% | +92.9% | +98.3% | +95.1% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 48.4 | 62.2 | 57.3 | 31.9 | 47.6 | 60.6 | 59.1 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 209K | 4.5M | 1.9M | 3.2M | 535K | 12.7M | 7.0M |
Analyst Outlook
Evenly matched — LEO and KO each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: MS as "Buy", GS as "Hold", ICE as "Buy", MSCI as "Buy", KO as "Buy", JPM 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%.
| Metric | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | — | Buy | Hold | Buy | Buy | Buy | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | — | $201.25 | $972.70 | $194.00 | $688.00 | $86.13 | $339.75 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | — | 52 | 55 | 36 | 27 | 48 | 61 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | +3.8% | +1.9% | +1.6% | +1.4% | +1.2% | +2.5% | +1.9% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 1 | 12 | 14 | 13 | 12 | 56 | 15 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | $0.24 | $4.14 | $16.62 | $1.93 | $7.20 | $2.04 | $5.95 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | 0.0% | +1.7% | +3.7% | +1.7% | +5.7% | +0.2% | +3.9% |
MSCI leads in 1 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow). GS leads in 1 (Total Returns). 3 tied.
LEO vs MS vs GS vs ICE vs MSCI vs KO vs JPM: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is LEO or MS or GS or ICE or MSCI or KO or JPM 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). JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM) offers the better valuation at 16. 0x trailing P/E (14. 4x 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.
02Which has the better valuation — LEO or MS or GS or ICE or MSCI or KO or JPM?
On trailing P/E, JPMorgan Chase & Co.
(JPM) is the cheapest at 16. 0x versus MSCI Inc. at 38. 5x. On forward P/E, JPMorgan Chase & Co. is actually cheaper at 14. 4x. The PEG ratio (P/E divided by earnings growth rate) is the most growth-adjusted single valuation metric: JPMorgan Chase & Co. wins at 0. 81x versus The Coca-Cola Company's 2. 26x — a PEG below 1. 0 traditionally signals the market is underpricing earnings growth.
03Which is the better long-term investment — LEO or MS or GS or ICE or MSCI or KO or JPM?
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.
04Which is safer — LEO or MS or GS or ICE or MSCI or KO or JPM?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), The Coca-Cola Company (KO) is the lower-risk stock at -0.
20β versus The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. 's 1. 60β — meaning GS is approximately -902% more volatile than KO 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 MS or GS or ICE or MSCI or KO or JPM?
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.
06Which has better profit margins — LEO or MS or GS or ICE or MSCI or KO or JPM?
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 MS or GS or ICE or MSCI or KO or JPM 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, JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 0. 81x versus The Coca-Cola Company's 2. 26x. A PEG below 1. 0 is traditionally considered the threshold for growth-adjusted undervaluation. On forward earnings alone, JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM) trades at 14. 4x forward P/E versus 30. 5x for MSCI Inc. — 16. 1x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for ICE: 38. 0% to $194. 00.
08Which pays a better dividend — LEO or MS or GS or ICE or MSCI or KO or JPM?
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).
09Is LEO or MS or GS or ICE or MSCI or KO or JPM better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, The Coca-Cola Company (KO) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β -0.
20), 2. 5% yield, +121. 1% 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 (KO: +121. 1%, 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 MS and GS and ICE and MSCI and KO and JPM?
These companies operate in different sectors (LEO (Financial Services) and MS (Financial Services) and GS (Financial Services) and ICE (Financial Services) and MSCI (Financial Services) and KO (Consumer Defensive) and JPM (Financial Services)), which means they face different economic cycles, regulatory environments, and macro sensitivities — making direct comparison nuanced.
In terms of investment character: LEO is a small-cap income-oriented stock; MS is a large-cap quality compounder stock; GS is a large-cap quality compounder stock; ICE is a mid-cap quality compounder stock; MSCI is a mid-cap quality compounder stock; KO is a large-cap quality compounder stock; JPM is a large-cap deep-value 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.