NMFC vs BAC vs GS vs JPM

For growth investors, The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.

(GS) is the stronger pick with 17. 0% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -1. 9% for Bank of America Corporation (BAC). Bank of America Corporation (BAC) offers the better valuation at 13. 8x trailing P/E (11. 9x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Bank of America Corporation (BAC) a "Buy" — based on 54 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, Bank of America Corporation (BAC) is the cheapest at 13.

8x versus New Mountain Finance Corporation at 60. 3x. On forward P/E, New Mountain Finance Corporation is actually cheaper at 7. 6x — notably different from the trailing picture, reflecting expected earnings growth. The PEG ratio (P/E divided by earnings growth rate) is the most growth-adjusted single valuation metric: Bank of America Corporation wins at 0. 77x versus The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. 's 1. 12x — a PEG below 1. 0 traditionally signals the market is underpricing earnings growth.

Over the past 5 years, The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.

(GS) delivered a total return of +164. 4%, compared to +14. 8% for New Mountain Finance Corporation (NMFC). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: GS returned +534. 3% versus NMFC's +75. 1%. 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), New Mountain Finance Corporation (NMFC) is the lower-risk stock at 0.

59β versus The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. 's 1. 47β — meaning GS is approximately 148% more volatile than NMFC relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Bank of America Corporation (BAC) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 121% versus 5% for The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.

By revenue growth (latest reported year), The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.

(GS) is pulling ahead at 17. 0% versus -1. 9% for Bank of America Corporation (BAC). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. grew EPS 77. 3% year-over-year, compared to -86. 4% for New Mountain Finance 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.

JPMorgan Chase & Co.

(JPM) is the more profitable company, earning 21. 6% net margin versus 4. 5% for New Mountain Finance Corporation — meaning it keeps 21. 6% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: NMFC leads at 38. 0% versus 14. 5% for GS. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — NMFC leads at 83. 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.

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, Bank of America Corporation (BAC) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 0. 77x versus The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. 's 1. 12x. A PEG below 1. 0 is traditionally considered the threshold for growth-adjusted undervaluation. On forward earnings alone, New Mountain Finance Corporation (NMFC) trades at 7. 6x forward P/E versus 15. 6x for The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. — 8. 1x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for NMFC: 24. 4% to $10. 50.

All stocks in this comparison pay dividends.

New Mountain Finance Corporation (NMFC) offers the highest yield at 13. 3%, versus 1. 5% for The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (GS).

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

59), 13. 3% yield). Both have compounded well over 10 years (NMFC: +75. 1%, GS: +534. 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.

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: NMFC is a small-cap income-oriented stock; BAC is a large-cap deep-value stock; GS is a large-cap high-growth stock; JPM is a large-cap deep-value 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.