LPLA vs SF vs RJF vs SCHW

For growth investors, LPL Financial Holdings Inc.

(LPLA) is the stronger pick with 37. 2% revenue growth year-over-year, versus 1. 9% for The Charles Schwab Corporation (SCHW). 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.

On trailing P/E, Stifel Financial Corp.

(SF) is the cheapest at 13. 2x versus The Charles Schwab Corporation at 30. 9x. 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 The Charles Schwab Corporation's 6. 70x — a PEG below 1. 0 traditionally signals the market is underpricing earnings growth.

Over the past 5 years, LPL Financial Holdings Inc.

(LPLA) delivered a total return of +113. 1%, compared to +36. 9% for The Charles Schwab Corporation (SCHW). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: LPLA returned +1284% versus SCHW's +262. 2%. 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), The Charles Schwab Corporation (SCHW) is the lower-risk stock at 0.

72β versus Stifel Financial Corp. 's 1. 23β — meaning SF is approximately 70% more volatile than SCHW 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.

By revenue growth (latest reported year), LPL Financial Holdings Inc.

(LPLA) is pulling ahead at 37. 2% versus 1. 9% for The Charles Schwab Corporation (SCHW). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: The Charles Schwab Corporation grew EPS 17. 7% 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.

The Charles Schwab Corporation (SCHW) is the more profitable company, earning 22.

9% net margin versus 5. 1% for LPL Financial Holdings Inc. — meaning it keeps 22. 9% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: SCHW leads at 29. 6% 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.

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 The Charles Schwab Corporation's 6. 70x. 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 15. 3x for The Charles Schwab Corporation — 2. 9x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for LPLA: 34. 6% to $441. 00.

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).

For long-horizon retirement investors, The Charles Schwab Corporation (SCHW) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0.

72), 1. 3% yield, +262. 2% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (SCHW: +262. 2%, 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.

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; SF is a mid-cap deep-value stock; RJF is a mid-cap deep-value stock; SCHW is a mid-cap quality compounder stock. SF, RJF, SCHW 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.