MCO vs SPGI

For growth investors, Moody's Corporation (MCO) is the stronger pick with 8.

9% revenue growth year-over-year, versus 7. 9% for S&P Global Inc. (SPGI). S&P Global Inc. (SPGI) offers the better valuation at 28. 9x trailing P/E (21. 6x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Moody's Corporation (MCO) a "Buy" — based on 32 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, S&P Global Inc.

(SPGI) is the cheapest at 28. 9x versus Moody's Corporation at 32. 8x. On forward P/E, S&P Global Inc. is actually cheaper at 21. 6x. The PEG ratio (P/E divided by earnings growth rate) is the most growth-adjusted single valuation metric: S&P Global Inc. wins at 2. 48x versus Moody's Corporation's 3. 44x.

Over the past 5 years, Moody's Corporation (MCO) delivered a total return of +40.

9%, compared to +13. 3% for S&P Global Inc. (SPGI). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: MCO returned +401. 6% versus SPGI's +333. 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), S&P Global Inc.

(SPGI) is the lower-risk stock at 0. 58β versus Moody's Corporation's 0. 86β — meaning MCO is approximately 49% more volatile than SPGI relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, S&P Global Inc. (SPGI) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 39% versus 175% for Moody's Corporation — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.

By revenue growth (latest reported year), Moody's Corporation (MCO) is pulling ahead at 8.

9% versus 7. 9% for S&P Global Inc. (SPGI). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Moody's Corporation grew EPS 21. 4% year-over-year, compared to 18. 7% for S&P Global 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.

Moody's Corporation (MCO) is the more profitable company, earning 31.

9% net margin versus 29. 2% for S&P Global Inc. — meaning it keeps 31. 9% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: MCO leads at 44. 8% versus 42. 2% for SPGI. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — SPGI leads at 70. 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, S&P Global Inc. (SPGI) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 2. 48x versus Moody's Corporation's 3. 44x. Both stocks trade at elevated growth-adjusted valuations, so expected growth needs to materialise. On forward earnings alone, S&P Global Inc. (SPGI) trades at 21. 6x forward P/E versus 26. 9x for Moody's Corporation — 5. 3x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for SPGI: 29. 4% to $548. 11.

All stocks in this comparison pay dividends.

S&P Global Inc. (SPGI) offers the highest yield at 0. 9%, versus 0. 9% for Moody's Corporation (MCO).

For long-horizon retirement investors, S&P Global Inc.

(SPGI) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0. 58), 0. 9% yield, +333. 2% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (SPGI: +333. 2%, MCO: +401. 6%), 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.

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.