Asset Management
Compare Stocks
5 / 10Stock Comparison
MCI vs WHF vs GBDC vs TPVG vs ARCC
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Asset Management
Asset Management
Asset Management
Asset Management
MCI vs WHF vs GBDC vs TPVG vs ARCC — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Asset Management | Asset Management | Asset Management | Asset Management | Asset Management |
| Market Cap | $357M | $169M | $3.43B | $243M | $13.61B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $43M | $38M | $871M | $97M | $3.15B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $32M | $16M | $205M | $-12M | $1.15B |
| Gross Margin | 87.6% | 52.3% | 81.5% | 83.5% | 75.7% |
| Operating Margin | 86.7% | 100.9% | 78.9% | 77.9% | 69.7% |
| Forward P/E | 10.0x | 7.0x | 9.2x | 6.5x | 9.9x |
| Total Debt | $46M | $324M | $4.90B | $469M | $15.99B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $17M | $29M | $24M | $20M | $924M |
MCI vs WHF vs GBDC vs TPVG vs ARCC — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | May 20 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Barings Corporate I… (MCI) | 100 | 128.8 | +28.8% |
| WhiteHorse Finance,… (WHF) | 100 | 77.7 | -22.3% |
| Golub Capital BDC, … (GBDC) | 100 | 108.3 | +8.3% |
| TriplePoint Venture… (TPVG) | 100 | 59.8 | -40.2% |
| Ares Capital Corpor… (ARCC) | 100 | 128.5 | +28.5% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: MCI vs WHF vs GBDC vs TPVG vs ARCC
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
MCI ranks third and is worth considering specifically for sleep-well-at-night and defensive.
- Lower volatility, beta 0.17, Low D/E 13.3%, current ratio 1.99x
- Beta 0.17, yield 9.0%, current ratio 1.99x
- NIM 9.0% vs ARCC's 3.6%
- Beta 0.17 vs TPVG's 0.83, lower leverage
WHF carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for income & stability and growth exposure.
- Dividend streak 1 yrs, beta 0.47, yield 20.8%
- Rev growth 121.6%, EPS growth 31.9%
- 121.6% NII/revenue growth vs MCI's 5.1%
- Lower P/E (7.0x vs 9.9x)
GBDC is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if valuation efficiency is your priority.
- PEG 0.30 vs TPVG's 6.41
- Efficiency ratio 0.0% vs ARCC's 0.1% (lower = leaner)
- Efficiency ratio 0.0% vs ARCC's 0.1%
TPVG is the clearest fit if your priority is momentum.
- +19.3% vs MCI's -4.8%
ARCC is the clearest fit if your priority is long-term compounding.
- 139.2% 10Y total return vs MCI's 72.7%
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 121.6% NII/revenue growth vs MCI's 5.1% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (7.0x vs 9.9x) | |
| Quality / Margins | Efficiency ratio 0.0% vs ARCC's 0.1% (lower = leaner) | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.17 vs TPVG's 0.83, lower leverage | |
| Dividends | 20.8% yield, 1-year raise streak, vs MCI's 9.0% | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +19.3% vs MCI's -4.8% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | Efficiency ratio 0.0% vs ARCC's 0.1% |
MCI vs WHF vs GBDC vs TPVG vs ARCC — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 5 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
MCI leads in 3 of 6 categories
TPVG leads 1 • WHF leads 0 • GBDC leads 0 • ARCC leads 0 • 2 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
MCI leads this category, winning 4 of 5 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
ARCC is the larger business by revenue, generating $3.1B annually — 83.0x WHF's $38M. MCI is the more profitable business, keeping 82.2% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to WHF's 37.8%.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $43M | $38M | $871M | $97M | $3.1B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $0 | -$4M | $431M | -$22M | $2.0B |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | $32M | $16M | $205M | -$12M | $1.1B |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | $13M | $65M | $313M | $35M | $1.1B |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +87.6% | +52.3% | +81.5% | +83.5% | +75.7% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | +86.7% | +100.9% | +78.9% | +77.9% | +69.7% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | +82.2% | +37.8% | +43.2% | +50.6% | +41.3% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | +65.0% | +50.9% | -13.0% | -58.7% | +36.3% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | — | — | — | — | — |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -21.4% | -110.0% | -160.0% | -2.3% | -63.9% |
Valuation Metrics
TPVG leads this category, winning 4 of 7 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 4.9x trailing earnings, TPVG trades at a 60% valuation discount to WHF's 12.2x P/E. Adjusting for growth (PEG ratio), GBDC offers better value at 0.30x vs TPVG's 4.84x — a lower PEG means you pay less per unit of expected earnings growth.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $357M | $169M | $3.4B | $243M | $13.6B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $386M | $463M | $8.3B | $691M | $28.7B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | 9.97x | 12.23x | 9.26x | 4.91x | 10.19x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | — | 6.98x | 9.15x | 6.50x | 9.92x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | — | 0.30x | 4.84x | 0.99x |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 10.32x | 12.36x | 12.08x | 9.13x | 13.09x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 8.25x | 4.45x | 3.93x | 2.50x | 4.33x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 1.03x | 0.68x | 0.88x | 0.68x | 0.93x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | 12.69x | 8.74x | — | — | 11.92x |
Profitability & Efficiency
MCI leads this category, winning 8 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
MCI delivers a 9.1% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $9 in annual profit, vs $-3 for TPVG. MCI carries lower financial leverage with a 0.13x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to TPVG's 1.33x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), WHF scores 7/9 vs MCI's 3/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | +9.1% | +6.0% | +5.2% | -3.4% | +8.1% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | +8.0% | +2.5% | +2.3% | -1.5% | +3.8% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | +7.3% | +4.7% | +5.9% | +7.2% | +5.7% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | +9.6% | +6.5% | +7.8% | +9.4% | +7.5% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 3 | 7 | 4 | 5 | 4 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.13x | 1.25x | 1.23x | 1.33x | 1.12x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $29M | $295M | $4.9B | $449M | $15.1B |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $17M | $29M | $24M | $20M | $924M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $46M | $324M | $4.9B | $469M | $16.0B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | 43.24x | -0.20x | 1.62x | -1.02x | 2.98x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
MCI leads this category, winning 3 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in MCI five years ago would be worth $15,959 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $8,649 for TPVG. Over the past 12 months, TPVG leads with a +19.3% total return vs MCI's -4.8%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors MCI at 18.3% vs TPVG's -1.2% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | -6.0% | +12.2% | -0.7% | -6.3% | -4.9% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | -4.8% | -4.0% | +3.3% | +19.3% | +0.4% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +65.7% | +8.8% | +35.3% | -3.4% | +34.2% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +59.6% | -1.8% | +33.2% | -13.5% | +47.0% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +72.7% | +125.5% | +61.0% | +93.3% | +139.2% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | +18.3% | +2.9% | +10.6% | -1.2% | +10.3% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — MCI and GBDC each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
MCI is the less volatile stock with a 0.17 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than TPVG's 0.83 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. GBDC currently trades 84.1% from its 52-week high vs MCI's 75.8% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 0.17x | 0.47x | 0.64x | 0.83x | 0.77x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $23.00 | $9.66 | $15.63 | $7.53 | $23.42 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $17.24 | $6.07 | $11.77 | $4.48 | $17.40 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +75.8% | +78.5% | +84.1% | +79.5% | +81.0% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 37.6 | 55.1 | 52.8 | 58.3 | 56.7 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 43K | 106K | 2.4M | 504K | 7.5M |
Analyst Outlook
Evenly matched — MCI and WHF each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: WHF as "Hold", GBDC as "Buy", TPVG as "Hold", ARCC as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 58.3% upside for WHF (target: $12) vs 9.0% for GBDC (target: $14). For income investors, WHF offers the higher dividend yield at 20.84% vs ARCC's 2.02%.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | — | Hold | Buy | Hold | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | — | $12.00 | $14.33 | $8.95 | $21.88 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | — | 18 | 11 | 12 | 32 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | +9.0% | +20.8% | +10.5% | +17.1% | +2.0% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | $1.57 | $1.58 | $1.38 | $1.02 | $0.38 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | 0.0% | +4.4% | +2.3% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
MCI leads in 3 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow, Profitability & Efficiency). TPVG leads in 1 (Valuation Metrics). 2 tied.
MCI vs WHF vs GBDC vs TPVG vs ARCC: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is MCI or WHF or GBDC or TPVG or ARCC a better buy right now?
For growth investors, WhiteHorse Finance, Inc.
(WHF) is the stronger pick with 121. 6% revenue growth year-over-year, versus 5. 1% for Barings Corporate Investors (MCI). TriplePoint Venture Growth BDC Corp. (TPVG) offers the better valuation at 4. 9x trailing P/E (6. 5x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Golub Capital BDC, Inc. (GBDC) a "Buy" — based on 11 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 — MCI or WHF or GBDC or TPVG or ARCC?
On trailing P/E, TriplePoint Venture Growth BDC Corp.
(TPVG) is the cheapest at 4. 9x versus WhiteHorse Finance, Inc. at 12. 2x. On forward P/E, TriplePoint Venture Growth BDC Corp. is actually cheaper at 6. 5x. The PEG ratio (P/E divided by earnings growth rate) is the most growth-adjusted single valuation metric: Golub Capital BDC, Inc. wins at 0. 30x versus TriplePoint Venture Growth BDC Corp. 's 6. 41x — a PEG below 1. 0 traditionally signals the market is underpricing earnings growth.
03Which is the better long-term investment — MCI or WHF or GBDC or TPVG or ARCC?
Over the past 5 years, Barings Corporate Investors (MCI) delivered a total return of +59.
6%, compared to -13. 5% for TriplePoint Venture Growth BDC Corp. (TPVG). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: ARCC returned +139. 2% versus GBDC's +61. 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 — MCI or WHF or GBDC or TPVG or ARCC?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Barings Corporate Investors (MCI) is the lower-risk stock at 0.
17β versus TriplePoint Venture Growth BDC Corp. 's 0. 83β — meaning TPVG is approximately 379% more volatile than MCI relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Barings Corporate Investors (MCI) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 13% versus 133% for TriplePoint Venture Growth BDC Corp. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — MCI or WHF or GBDC or TPVG or ARCC?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), WhiteHorse Finance, Inc.
(WHF) is pulling ahead at 121. 6% versus 5. 1% for Barings Corporate Investors (MCI). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: TriplePoint Venture Growth BDC Corp. grew EPS 48. 8% year-over-year, compared to -23. 8% for Ares Capital Corporation. 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 — MCI or WHF or GBDC or TPVG or ARCC?
Barings Corporate Investors (MCI) is the more profitable company, earning 82.
2% net margin versus 37. 8% for WhiteHorse Finance, Inc. — meaning it keeps 82. 2% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: WHF leads at 100. 9% versus 69. 7% for ARCC. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — MCI leads at 87. 6%, 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 MCI or WHF or GBDC or TPVG or ARCC 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, Golub Capital BDC, Inc. (GBDC) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 0. 30x versus TriplePoint Venture Growth BDC Corp. 's 6. 41x. A PEG below 1. 0 is traditionally considered the threshold for growth-adjusted undervaluation. On forward earnings alone, TriplePoint Venture Growth BDC Corp. (TPVG) trades at 6. 5x forward P/E versus 9. 9x for Ares Capital Corporation — 3. 4x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for WHF: 58. 3% to $12. 00.
08Which pays a better dividend — MCI or WHF or GBDC or TPVG or ARCC?
All stocks in this comparison pay dividends.
WhiteHorse Finance, Inc. (WHF) offers the highest yield at 20. 8%, versus 2. 0% for Ares Capital Corporation (ARCC).
09Is MCI or WHF or GBDC or TPVG or ARCC better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, Barings Corporate Investors (MCI) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0.
17), 9. 0% yield). Both have compounded well over 10 years (MCI: +72. 7%, TPVG: +93. 3%), 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 MCI and WHF and GBDC and TPVG and ARCC?
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: MCI is a small-cap deep-value stock; WHF is a small-cap high-growth stock; GBDC is a small-cap high-growth stock; TPVG is a small-cap high-growth stock; ARCC is a mid-cap high-growth 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 all of them.
You Might Also Compare
Based on how these companies actually compete and overlap — not just which sector they're filed under.