MMC vs MCO

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

9% revenue growth year-over-year, versus 7. 6% for Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. (MMC). Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. (MMC) offers the better valuation at 21. 3x trailing P/E (16. 9x 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, Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc.

(MMC) is the cheapest at 21. 3x versus Moody's Corporation at 33. 4x. On forward P/E, Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. is actually cheaper at 16. 9x. The PEG ratio (P/E divided by earnings growth rate) is the most growth-adjusted single valuation metric: Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. wins at 0. 88x versus Moody's Corporation's 3. 51x — a PEG below 1. 0 traditionally signals the market is underpricing earnings growth.

Over the past 5 years, Moody's Corporation (MCO) delivered a total return of +41.

4%, compared to +36. 5% for Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. (MMC). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: MCO returned +409. 5% versus MMC's +209. 8%. 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), Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc.

(MMC) is the lower-risk stock at 0. 14β versus Moody's Corporation's 0. 86β — meaning MCO is approximately 528% more volatile than MMC relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. (MMC) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 162% 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. 6% for Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. (MMC). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Moody's Corporation grew EPS 21. 4% year-over-year, compared to 8. 6% for Marsh & McLennan Companies, 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 16. 6% for Marsh & McLennan Companies, 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 23. 8% for MMC. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — MCO leads at 68. 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, Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. (MMC) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 0. 88x versus Moody's Corporation's 3. 51x. A PEG below 1. 0 is traditionally considered the threshold for growth-adjusted undervaluation. On forward earnings alone, Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. (MMC) trades at 16. 9x forward P/E versus 27. 4x for Moody's Corporation — 10. 5x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for MCO: 19. 2% to $544. 75.

All stocks in this comparison pay dividends.

Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. (MMC) offers the highest yield at 1. 8%, versus 0. 9% for Moody's Corporation (MCO).

For long-horizon retirement investors, Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc.

(MMC) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0. 14), 1. 8% yield, +209. 8% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (MMC: +209. 8%, MCO: +409. 5%), 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.