Financial - Capital Markets
Compare Stocks
5 / 10Stock Comparison
NMR vs MS vs GS vs UBS vs DB
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Financial - Capital Markets
Financial - Capital Markets
Banks - Diversified
Banks - Regional
NMR vs MS vs GS vs UBS vs DB — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Financial - Capital Markets | Financial - Capital Markets | Financial - Capital Markets | Banks - Diversified | Banks - Regional |
| Market Cap | $23.56B | $307.53B | $291.19B | $140.31B | $61.26B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $4.76T | $103.14B | $126.85B | $59.05B | $60.86B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $370.05B | $16.18B | $16.67B | $6.27B | $6.93B |
| Gross Margin | 45.6% | 55.6% | 41.1% | 63.6% | 49.9% |
| Operating Margin | 11.3% | 17.1% | 14.5% | 11.9% | 16.0% |
| Forward P/E | 10.0x | 16.3x | 15.8x | 13.8x | 9.5x |
| Total Debt | $17.30T | $360.49B | $616.93B | $356.12B | $254.81B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $4.30T | $75.74B | $182.09B | $209.86B | $171.62B |
NMR vs MS vs GS vs UBS vs DB — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | May 20 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nomura Holdings, In… (NMR) | 100 | 191.5 | +91.5% |
| Morgan Stanley (MS) | 100 | 437.3 | +337.3% |
| The Goldman Sachs G… (GS) | 100 | 477.0 | +377.0% |
| UBS Group AG (UBS) | 100 | 422.5 | +322.5% |
| Deutsche Bank AG (DB) | 100 | 381.2 | +281.2% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: NMR vs MS vs GS vs UBS vs DB
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
NMR is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if sleep-well-at-night and defensive is your priority.
- Lower volatility, beta 1.32, current ratio 1.43x
- Beta 1.32, yield 4.6%, current ratio 1.43x
- 4.6% yield, 3-year raise streak, vs GS's 1.4%, (1 stock pays no dividend)
MS is the clearest fit if your priority is income & stability.
- Dividend streak 11 yrs, beta 1.37, yield 2.0%
GS carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for growth exposure and long-term compounding.
- Rev growth 17.0%, EPS growth 77.3%
- 5.4% 10Y total return vs MS's 7.4%
- 17.0% NII/revenue growth vs UBS's -20.4%
- Efficiency ratio 0.3% vs UBS's 0.5% (lower = leaner)
UBS ranks third and is worth considering specifically for stability.
- Beta 1.17 vs DB's 1.48
DB is the clearest fit if your priority is valuation efficiency and bank quality.
- PEG 0.08 vs UBS's 12.51
- NIM 1.1% vs UBS's 0.4%
- Lower P/E (9.5x vs 13.8x), PEG 0.08 vs 12.51
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 17.0% NII/revenue growth vs UBS's -20.4% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (9.5x vs 13.8x), PEG 0.08 vs 12.51 | |
| Quality / Margins | Efficiency ratio 0.3% vs UBS's 0.5% (lower = leaner) | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 1.17 vs DB's 1.48 | |
| Dividends | 4.6% yield, 3-year raise streak, vs GS's 1.4%, (1 stock pays no dividend) | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +73.4% vs DB's +22.6% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | Efficiency ratio 0.3% vs UBS's 0.5% |
NMR vs MS vs GS vs UBS vs DB — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
Segment breakdown not available.
Segment breakdown not available.
NMR vs MS vs GS vs UBS vs DB — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 5 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
MS leads in 2 of 6 categories
DB leads 1 • NMR leads 0 • GS leads 0 • UBS leads 0 • 3 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
MS leads this category, winning 3 of 5 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
NMR is the larger business by revenue, generating $4.76T annually — 80.6x UBS's $59.1B. MS is the more profitable business, keeping 13.0% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to NMR's 7.6%.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $4.76T | $103.1B | $126.9B | $59.1B | $60.9B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $533.0B | $26.3B | $23.4B | $9.9B | $9.7B |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | $370.1B | $16.2B | $16.7B | $6.3B | $6.9B |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | $0 | -$6.7B | $15.8B | $3.9B | $0 |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +45.6% | +55.6% | +41.1% | +63.6% | +49.9% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | +11.3% | +17.1% | +14.5% | +11.9% | +16.0% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | +7.6% | +13.0% | +11.3% | +10.4% | +11.4% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | -25.2% | -2.0% | -12.1% | -26.4% | — |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | — | — | — | — | — |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -5.5% | +48.9% | +45.8% | +26.1% | +3.3% |
Valuation Metrics
DB leads this category, winning 5 of 6 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 8.8x trailing earnings, DB trades at a 64% valuation discount to MS's 24.3x P/E. Adjusting for growth (PEG ratio), DB offers better value at 0.08x vs UBS's 21.88x — a lower PEG means you pay less per unit of expected earnings growth.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $23.6B | $307.5B | $291.2B | $140.3B | $61.3B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $106.8B | $592.3B | $726.0B | $286.6B | $158.9B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | 10.71x | 24.31x | 23.12x | 24.18x | 8.83x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | 9.99x | 16.28x | 15.84x | 13.83x | 9.51x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | 0.55x | 2.73x | 1.65x | 21.88x | 0.08x |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 27.43x | 26.03x | 34.92x | 30.01x | 13.93x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 0.77x | 2.98x | 2.30x | 2.38x | 0.86x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 1.01x | 2.95x | 2.56x | 1.65x | 0.68x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | — | — | — | — | — |
Profitability & Efficiency
MS leads this category, winning 5 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
MS delivers a 14.6% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $15 in annual profit, vs $7 for UBS. DB carries lower financial leverage with a 3.18x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to GS's 5.06x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), UBS scores 6/9 vs GS's 4/9, reflecting solid financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | +10.2% | +14.6% | +12.6% | +7.0% | +8.7% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | +0.6% | +1.2% | +0.9% | +0.4% | +0.5% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | +1.4% | +2.9% | +1.9% | +1.2% | +2.6% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | +2.4% | +3.8% | +3.6% | +1.1% | +1.9% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 6 | 5 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 4.49x | 3.42x | 5.06x | 3.94x | 3.18x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $13.00T | $284.7B | $434.8B | $146.3B | $83.2B |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $4.30T | $75.7B | $182.1B | $209.9B | $171.6B |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $17.30T | $360.5B | $616.9B | $356.1B | $254.8B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | 0.20x | 0.44x | 0.31x | 0.33x | 0.34x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
Evenly matched — MS and DB each lead in 2 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in UBS five years ago would be worth $31,255 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $16,867 for NMR. Over the past 12 months, GS leads with a +73.4% total return vs DB's +22.6%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors DB at 46.7% vs MS's 34.3% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | -3.4% | +7.4% | +3.0% | -1.7% | -19.1% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | +51.0% | +66.7% | +73.4% | +50.9% | +22.6% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +152.1% | +142.1% | +198.7% | +143.6% | +215.5% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +68.7% | +142.2% | +171.1% | +212.5% | +143.8% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +146.3% | +739.4% | +536.1% | +238.9% | +102.7% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | +36.1% | +34.3% | +44.0% | +34.6% | +46.7% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — MS and UBS each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
UBS is the less volatile stock with a 1.17 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than DB's 1.48 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. MS currently trades 99.2% from its 52-week high vs DB's 79.2% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 1.32x | 1.37x | 1.47x | 1.17x | 1.48x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $9.58 | $194.83 | $984.70 | $49.36 | $40.43 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $5.48 | $117.21 | $547.06 | $30.36 | $26.59 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +85.2% | +99.2% | +95.2% | +91.6% | +79.2% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 44.4 | 61.2 | 55.0 | 63.5 | 43.4 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 2.1M | 5.4M | 2.0M | 2.7M | 3.5M |
Analyst Outlook
Evenly matched — NMR and GS each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: NMR as "Hold", MS as "Buy", GS as "Hold", UBS as "Buy", DB as "Hold". Consensus price targets imply 6.5% upside for MS (target: $206) vs -53.6% for DB (target: $15). For income investors, NMR offers the higher dividend yield at 4.63% vs GS's 1.44%.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Hold | Buy | Hold | Buy | Hold |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $5.79 | $205.75 | $995.89 | $23.57 | $14.87 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 9 | 52 | 55 | 29 | 33 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | +4.6% | +2.0% | +1.4% | +1.6% | — |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 3 | 11 | 12 | 4 | 4 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | $59.06 | $3.81 | $13.48 | $0.72 | — |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | +2.8% | +1.4% | +3.5% | +3.1% | 0.0% |
MS leads in 2 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow, Profitability & Efficiency). DB leads in 1 (Valuation Metrics). 3 tied.
NMR vs MS vs GS vs UBS vs DB: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is NMR or MS or GS or UBS or DB a better buy right now?
For growth investors, The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.
(GS) is the stronger pick with 17. 0% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -20. 4% for UBS Group AG (UBS). Deutsche Bank AG (DB) offers the better valuation at 8. 8x trailing P/E (9. 5x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Morgan Stanley (MS) a "Buy" — based on 52 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 — NMR or MS or GS or UBS or DB?
On trailing P/E, Deutsche Bank AG (DB) is the cheapest at 8.
8x versus Morgan Stanley at 24. 3x. On forward P/E, Deutsche Bank AG is actually cheaper at 9. 5x. The PEG ratio (P/E divided by earnings growth rate) is the most growth-adjusted single valuation metric: Deutsche Bank AG wins at 0. 08x versus UBS Group AG's 12. 51x — a PEG below 1. 0 traditionally signals the market is underpricing earnings growth.
03Which is the better long-term investment — NMR or MS or GS or UBS or DB?
Over the past 5 years, UBS Group AG (UBS) delivered a total return of +212.
5%, compared to +68. 7% for Nomura Holdings, Inc. (NMR). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: MS returned +739. 4% versus DB's +102. 7%. 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 — NMR or MS or GS or UBS or DB?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), UBS Group AG (UBS) is the lower-risk stock at 1.
17β versus Deutsche Bank AG's 1. 48β — meaning DB is approximately 26% more volatile than UBS relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Deutsche Bank AG (DB) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 3% versus 5% for The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — NMR or MS or GS or UBS or DB?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.
(GS) is pulling ahead at 17. 0% versus -20. 4% for UBS Group AG (UBS). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Deutsche Bank AG grew EPS 125. 5% year-over-year, compared to 7. 2% for Nomura Holdings, 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.
06Which has better profit margins — NMR or MS or GS or UBS or DB?
Morgan Stanley (MS) is the more profitable company, earning 13.
0% net margin versus 7. 6% for Nomura Holdings, Inc. — meaning it keeps 13. 0% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: MS leads at 17. 1% versus 11. 3% for NMR. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — UBS leads at 63. 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 NMR or MS or GS or UBS or DB 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, Deutsche Bank AG (DB) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 0. 08x versus UBS Group AG's 12. 51x. A PEG below 1. 0 is traditionally considered the threshold for growth-adjusted undervaluation. On forward earnings alone, Deutsche Bank AG (DB) trades at 9. 5x forward P/E versus 16. 3x for Morgan Stanley — 6. 8x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for MS: 6. 5% to $205. 75.
08Which pays a better dividend — NMR or MS or GS or UBS or DB?
In this comparison, NMR (4.
6% yield), MS (2. 0% yield), UBS (1. 6% yield), GS (1. 4% yield) pay a dividend. DB does not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
09Is NMR or MS or GS or UBS or DB better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, Morgan Stanley (MS) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (2.
0% yield, +739. 4% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (MS: +739. 4%, DB: +102. 7%), 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 NMR and MS and GS and UBS and DB?
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: NMR is a mid-cap deep-value stock; MS is a large-cap high-growth stock; GS is a large-cap high-growth stock; UBS is a mid-cap quality compounder stock; DB is a mid-cap deep-value stock. NMR, MS, GS, UBS pay a dividend while DB does not, making them suitable for different income and tax situations. 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.