Financial - Capital Markets
Compare Stocks
2 / 10Stock Comparison
MC vs PWP
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Financial - Capital Markets
MC vs PWP — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | ||
|---|---|---|
| Industry | Financial - Capital Markets | Financial - Capital Markets |
| Market Cap | $4.68B | $1.96B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $1.52B | $751M |
| Net Income (TTM) | $233M | $20M |
| Gross Margin | 99.2% | 97.2% |
| Operating Margin | 18.1% | 6.4% |
| Forward P/E | 20.8x | 17.5x |
| Total Debt | $267M | $354M |
| Cash & Equiv. | $509M | $256M |
MC vs PWP — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | Nov 20 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Moelis & Company (MC) | 100 | 162.6 | +62.6% |
| Perella Weinberg Pa… (PWP) | 100 | 184.5 | +84.5% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: MC vs PWP
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
MC carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for income & stability and growth exposure.
- Dividend streak 1 yrs, beta 1.75, yield 4.1%
- Rev growth 27.0%, EPS growth 65.2%
- 261.3% 10Y total return vs PWP's 108.8%
PWP is the clearest fit if your priority is value.
- Lower P/E (17.5x vs 20.8x)
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 27.0% NII/revenue growth vs PWP's -14.5% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (17.5x vs 20.8x) | |
| Quality / Margins | Efficiency ratio 0.8% vs PWP's 0.9% (lower = leaner) | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 1.75 vs PWP's 1.85, lower leverage | |
| Dividends | 4.1% yield, 1-year raise streak, vs PWP's 1.8% | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +25.4% vs PWP's +17.3% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | Efficiency ratio 0.8% vs PWP's 0.9% |
MC vs PWP — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 2 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
MC leads this category, winning 5 of 5 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
MC is the larger business by revenue, generating $1.5B annually — 2.0x PWP's $751M. MC is the more profitable business, keeping 15.4% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to PWP's 4.7%.
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $1.5B | $751M |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $286M | $45M |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | $233M | $20M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | $540M | $96M |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +99.2% | +97.2% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | +18.1% | +6.4% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | +15.4% | +4.7% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | +35.6% | +4.1% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | — | — |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -4.3% | -91.7% |
Valuation Metrics
Evenly matched — MC and PWP each lead in 3 of 6 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 21.7x trailing earnings, MC trades at a 38% valuation discount to PWP's 35.2x P/E. On an enterprise value basis, MC's 15.5x EV/EBITDA is more attractive than PWP's 29.9x.
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $4.7B | $2.0B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $4.4B | $2.1B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | 21.70x | 35.16x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | 20.79x | 17.54x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | — |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 15.55x | 29.91x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 3.09x | 2.61x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 7.43x | 4.76x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | 8.68x | 64.36x |
Profitability & Efficiency
MC leads this category, winning 8 of 8 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
MC delivers a 37.9% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $38 in annual profit, vs $16 for PWP. MC carries lower financial leverage with a 0.39x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to PWP's 1.36x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), MC scores 6/9 vs PWP's 4/9, reflecting solid financial health.
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | +37.9% | +16.3% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | +15.9% | +3.0% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | +24.9% | +7.0% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | +22.0% | +9.7% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 6 | 4 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.39x | 1.36x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | -$241M | $98M |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $509M | $256M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $267M | $354M |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | — | — |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
PWP leads this category, winning 4 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in PWP five years ago would be worth $17,773 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $14,435 for MC. Over the past 12 months, MC leads with a +25.4% total return vs PWP's +17.3%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors PWP at 36.0% vs MC's 26.8% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | -9.5% | +10.6% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | +25.4% | +17.3% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +103.7% | +151.3% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +44.3% | +77.7% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +261.3% | +108.8% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | +26.8% | +36.0% |
Risk & Volatility
MC leads this category, winning 2 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
MC is the less volatile stock with a 1.75 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than PWP's 1.85 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. MC currently trades 81.6% from its 52-week high vs PWP's 74.6% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 1.75x | 1.85x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $78.22 | $25.93 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $51.06 | $15.74 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +81.6% | +74.6% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 48.1 | 44.8 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 1.3M | 845K |
Analyst Outlook
MC leads this category, winning 2 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Wall Street rates MC as "Hold" and PWP as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 15.1% upside for MC (target: $73) vs 4.7% for PWP (target: $20). For income investors, MC offers the higher dividend yield at 4.13% vs PWP's 1.85%.
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Hold | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $73.40 | $20.25 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 22 | 4 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | +4.1% | +1.8% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 1 | 0 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | $2.63 | $0.36 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | +1.6% | +1.7% |
MC leads in 4 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow, Profitability & Efficiency). PWP leads in 1 (Total Returns). 1 tied.
MC vs PWP: Frequently Asked Questions
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is MC or PWP a better buy right now?
For growth investors, Moelis & Company (MC) is the stronger pick with 27.
0% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -14. 5% for Perella Weinberg Partners (PWP). Moelis & Company (MC) offers the better valuation at 21. 7x trailing P/E (20. 8x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Perella Weinberg Partners (PWP) a "Buy" — based on 4 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 — MC or PWP?
On trailing P/E, Moelis & Company (MC) is the cheapest at 21.
7x versus Perella Weinberg Partners at 35. 2x. On forward P/E, Perella Weinberg Partners is actually cheaper at 17. 5x — notably different from the trailing picture, reflecting expected earnings growth.
03Which is the better long-term investment — MC or PWP?
Over the past 5 years, Perella Weinberg Partners (PWP) delivered a total return of +77.
7%, compared to +44. 3% for Moelis & Company (MC). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: MC returned +261. 3% versus PWP's +108. 8%. 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 — MC or PWP?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Moelis & Company (MC) is the lower-risk stock at 1.
75β versus Perella Weinberg Partners's 1. 85β — meaning PWP is approximately 6% more volatile than MC relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Moelis & Company (MC) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 39% versus 136% for Perella Weinberg Partners — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — MC or PWP?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), Moelis & Company (MC) is pulling ahead at 27.
0% versus -14. 5% for Perella Weinberg Partners (PWP). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Perella Weinberg Partners grew EPS 145. 1% year-over-year, compared to 65. 2% for Moelis & Company. 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 — MC or PWP?
Moelis & Company (MC) is the more profitable company, earning 15.
4% net margin versus 4. 7% for Perella Weinberg Partners — meaning it keeps 15. 4% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: MC leads at 18. 1% versus 6. 4% for PWP. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — MC leads at 99. 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 MC or PWP more undervalued right now?
On forward earnings alone, Perella Weinberg Partners (PWP) trades at 17.
5x forward P/E versus 20. 8x for Moelis & Company — 3. 2x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for MC: 15. 1% to $73. 40.
08Which pays a better dividend — MC or PWP?
All stocks in this comparison pay dividends.
Moelis & Company (MC) offers the highest yield at 4. 1%, versus 1. 8% for Perella Weinberg Partners (PWP).
09Is MC or PWP better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, Moelis & Company (MC) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (4.
1% yield, +261. 3% 10Y return). Perella Weinberg Partners (PWP) carries a higher beta of 1. 85 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (MC: +261. 3%, PWP: +108. 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 MC and PWP?
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: MC is a small-cap high-growth stock; PWP is a small-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.
Find Stocks Like These
Explore pre-built screens for each stock's profile, or build a custom screen to find stocks that outperform both.
You Might Also Compare
Based on how these companies actually compete and overlap — not just which sector they're filed under.