Financial - Capital Markets
Compare Stocks
3 / 10Stock Comparison
LPLA vs RJF vs SF
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Financial - Capital Markets
Financial - Capital Markets
LPLA vs RJF vs SF — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Financial - Capital Markets | Financial - Capital Markets | Financial - Capital Markets |
| Market Cap | $26.27B | $31.31B | $12.03B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $16.99B | $15.91B | $6.30B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $863M | $2.15B | $684M |
| Gross Margin | 25.6% | 88.2% | 86.6% |
| Operating Margin | 13.4% | 28.7% | 13.8% |
| Forward P/E | 14.6x | 13.4x | 12.4x |
| Total Debt | $7.26B | $4.54B | $2.18B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $1.04B | $11.39B | $2.28B |
LPLA vs RJF vs SF — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | May 20 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| LPL Financial Holdi… (LPLA) | 100 | 458.9 | +358.9% |
| Raymond James Finan… (RJF) | 100 | 343.9 | +243.9% |
| Stifel Financial Co… (SF) | 100 | 366.6 | +266.6% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: LPLA vs RJF vs SF
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
LPLA has the current edge in this matchup, primarily because of its strength in long-term compounding.
- 12.8% 10Y total return vs SF's 5.2%
- 37.2% NII/revenue growth vs SF's 6.9%
- Efficiency ratio 0.1% vs SF's 0.7% (lower = leaner)
RJF is the clearest fit if your priority is income & stability and growth exposure.
- Dividend streak 22 yrs, beta 1.05, yield 1.3%
- Rev growth 7.9%, EPS growth 6.2%
- Lower volatility, beta 1.05, Low D/E 36.3%, current ratio 0.32x
SF is the clearest fit if your priority is defensive and bank quality.
- Beta 1.23, yield 2.4%, current ratio 5.24x
- NIM 2.6% vs RJF's 2.4%
- Lower P/E (12.4x vs 14.6x)
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 37.2% NII/revenue growth vs SF's 6.9% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (12.4x vs 14.6x) | |
| Quality / Margins | Efficiency ratio 0.1% vs SF's 0.7% (lower = leaner) | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 1.05 vs SF's 1.23, lower leverage | |
| Dividends | 2.4% yield, 10-year raise streak, vs RJF's 1.3% | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +33.6% vs LPLA's -1.6% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | Efficiency ratio 0.1% vs SF's 0.7% |
LPLA vs RJF vs SF — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
LPLA vs RJF vs SF — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 3 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
RJF leads this category, winning 4 of 5 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
LPLA is the larger business by revenue, generating $17.0B annually — 2.7x SF's $6.3B. RJF is the more profitable business, keeping 13.4% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to LPLA's 5.1%.
| Metric | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $17.0B | $15.9B | $6.3B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $2.3B | $2.9B | $1.0B |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | $863M | $2.1B | $684M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | -$1.1B | $1.5B | $993M |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +25.6% | +88.2% | +86.6% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | +13.4% | +28.7% | +13.8% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | +5.1% | +13.4% | +10.9% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | -5.8% | +14.1% | +19.1% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | — | — | — |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +4.2% | +15.3% | +10.5% |
Valuation Metrics
SF leads this category, winning 4 of 7 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 13.2x trailing earnings, SF trades at a 56% valuation discount to LPLA's 30.0x P/E. Adjusting for growth (PEG ratio), RJF offers better value at 0.72x vs LPLA's 2.26x — a lower PEG means you pay less per unit of expected earnings growth.
| Metric | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $26.3B | $31.3B | $12.0B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $32.5B | $24.5B | $11.9B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | 30.00x | 15.42x | 13.22x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | 14.57x | 13.35x | 12.39x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | 2.26x | 0.72x | 1.85x |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 11.15x | 5.14x | 12.78x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 1.55x | 1.97x | 1.91x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 4.85x | 2.63x | 1.44x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | — | 13.94x | 10.02x |
Profitability & Efficiency
RJF leads this category, winning 4 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
LPLA delivers a 18.6% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $19 in annual profit, vs $12 for SF. RJF carries lower financial leverage with a 0.36x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to LPLA's 1.36x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), SF scores 8/9 vs LPLA's 3/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | +18.6% | +16.4% | +12.0% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | +5.1% | +2.5% | +1.7% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | +16.1% | +20.9% | +7.9% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | +19.1% | +22.0% | +3.6% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 3 | 6 | 8 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 1.36x | 0.36x | 0.36x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $6.2B | -$6.8B | -$103M |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $1.0B | $11.4B | $2.3B |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $7.3B | $4.5B | $2.2B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | 3.85x | 1.57x | 1.07x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
SF leads this category, winning 3 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in LPLA five years ago would be worth $21,309 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $17,718 for SF. Over the past 12 months, SF leads with a +33.6% total return vs LPLA's -1.6%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors SF at 28.6% vs LPLA's 20.2% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | -9.3% | -2.2% | -8.7% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | -1.6% | +13.2% | +33.6% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +73.6% | +90.9% | +112.8% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +113.1% | +86.0% | +77.2% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +1283.9% | +403.7% | +516.7% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | +20.2% | +24.1% | +28.6% |
Risk & Volatility
RJF leads this category, winning 2 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
RJF is the less volatile stock with a 1.05 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than SF's 1.23 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. RJF currently trades 89.4% from its 52-week high vs SF's 59.5% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 1.10x | 1.05x | 1.23x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $403.58 | $177.66 | $130.67 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $281.51 | $138.82 | $58.24 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +81.2% | +89.4% | +59.5% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 51.2 | 60.7 | 46.6 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 898K | 1.3M | 1.4M |
Analyst Outlook
Evenly matched — RJF and SF each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: LPLA as "Buy", RJF as "Hold", SF as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 34.6% upside for LPLA (target: $441) vs 6.4% for RJF (target: $169). For income investors, SF offers the higher dividend yield at 2.40% vs LPLA's 0.36%.
| Metric | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Buy | Hold | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $441.00 | $169.00 | $93.44 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 22 | 24 | 22 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | +0.4% | +1.3% | +2.4% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 4 | 22 | 10 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | $1.19 | $2.01 | $1.87 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | +0.5% | +4.0% | +2.0% |
RJF leads in 3 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow, Profitability & Efficiency). SF leads in 2 (Valuation Metrics, Total Returns). 1 tied.
LPLA vs RJF vs SF: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is LPLA or RJF or SF a better buy right now?
For growth investors, LPL Financial Holdings Inc.
(LPLA) is the stronger pick with 37. 2% revenue growth year-over-year, versus 6. 9% for Stifel Financial Corp. (SF). Stifel Financial Corp. (SF) offers the better valuation at 13. 2x trailing P/E (12. 4x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate LPL Financial Holdings Inc. (LPLA) a "Buy" — based on 22 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 — LPLA or RJF or SF?
On trailing P/E, Stifel Financial Corp.
(SF) is the cheapest at 13. 2x versus LPL Financial Holdings Inc. at 30. 0x. On forward P/E, Stifel Financial Corp. is actually cheaper at 12. 4x. The PEG ratio (P/E divided by earnings growth rate) is the most growth-adjusted single valuation metric: Raymond James Financial, Inc. wins at 0. 62x versus Stifel Financial Corp. 's 1. 73x — a PEG below 1. 0 traditionally signals the market is underpricing earnings growth.
03Which is the better long-term investment — LPLA or RJF or SF?
Over the past 5 years, LPL Financial Holdings Inc.
(LPLA) delivered a total return of +113. 1%, compared to +77. 2% for Stifel Financial Corp. (SF). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: LPLA returned +1284% versus RJF's +403. 7%. 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 — LPLA or RJF or SF?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Raymond James Financial, Inc.
(RJF) is the lower-risk stock at 1. 05β versus Stifel Financial Corp. 's 1. 23β — meaning SF is approximately 17% more volatile than RJF relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Raymond James Financial, Inc. (RJF) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 36% versus 136% for LPL Financial Holdings Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — LPLA or RJF or SF?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), LPL Financial Holdings Inc.
(LPLA) is pulling ahead at 37. 2% versus 6. 9% for Stifel Financial Corp. (SF). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Raymond James Financial, Inc. grew EPS 6. 2% year-over-year, compared to -22. 2% for LPL Financial Holdings 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 — LPLA or RJF or SF?
Raymond James Financial, Inc.
(RJF) is the more profitable company, earning 13. 4% net margin versus 5. 1% for LPL Financial Holdings Inc. — meaning it keeps 13. 4% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: RJF leads at 28. 7% versus 13. 4% for LPLA. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — RJF leads at 88. 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 LPLA or RJF or SF 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, Raymond James Financial, Inc. (RJF) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 0. 62x versus Stifel Financial Corp. 's 1. 73x. A PEG below 1. 0 is traditionally considered the threshold for growth-adjusted undervaluation. On forward earnings alone, Stifel Financial Corp. (SF) trades at 12. 4x forward P/E versus 14. 6x for LPL Financial Holdings Inc. — 2. 2x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for LPLA: 34. 6% to $441. 00.
08Which pays a better dividend — LPLA or RJF or SF?
All stocks in this comparison pay dividends.
Stifel Financial Corp. (SF) offers the highest yield at 2. 4%, versus 0. 4% for LPL Financial Holdings Inc. (LPLA).
09Is LPLA or RJF or SF better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, LPL Financial Holdings Inc.
(LPLA) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 1. 10), +1284% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (LPLA: +1284%, SF: +516. 7%), 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 LPLA and RJF and SF?
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: LPLA is a mid-cap high-growth stock; RJF is a mid-cap deep-value stock; SF is a mid-cap deep-value stock. RJF, SF pay a dividend while LPLA does 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.