NMR vs MUFG

For growth investors, Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group, Inc.

(MUFG) is the stronger pick with 14. 1% revenue growth year-over-year, versus 5. 6% for Nomura Holdings, Inc. (NMR). Nomura Holdings, Inc. (NMR) offers the better valuation at 10. 4x trailing P/E (9. 7x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group, Inc. (MUFG) a "Buy" — based on 2 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, Nomura Holdings, Inc.

(NMR) is the cheapest at 10. 4x versus Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group, Inc. at 17. 6x. On forward P/E, Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group, Inc. is actually cheaper at 0. 1x — 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: Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group, Inc. wins at 0. 00x versus Nomura Holdings, Inc. 's 0. 49x — a PEG below 1. 0 traditionally signals the market is underpricing earnings growth.

Over the past 5 years, Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group, Inc.

(MUFG) delivered a total return of +247. 8%, compared to +68. 5% for Nomura Holdings, Inc. (NMR). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: MUFG returned +346. 1% versus NMR's +141. 5%. 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), Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group, Inc.

(MUFG) is the lower-risk stock at 1. 08β versus Nomura Holdings, Inc. 's 1. 32β — meaning NMR is approximately 22% more volatile than MUFG relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group, Inc. (MUFG) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 4% versus 4% for Nomura Holdings, Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.

By revenue growth (latest reported year), Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group, Inc.

(MUFG) is pulling ahead at 14. 1% versus 5. 6% for Nomura Holdings, Inc. (NMR). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group, Inc. grew EPS 28. 3% 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.

Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group, Inc.

(MUFG) is the more profitable company, earning 15. 0% net margin versus 7. 6% for Nomura Holdings, Inc. — meaning it keeps 15. 0% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: MUFG leads at 20. 5% versus 11. 3% for NMR. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — MUFG leads at 56. 5%, 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, Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group, Inc. (MUFG) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 0. 00x versus Nomura Holdings, Inc. 's 0. 49x. A PEG below 1. 0 is traditionally considered the threshold for growth-adjusted undervaluation. On forward earnings alone, Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group, Inc. (MUFG) trades at 0. 1x forward P/E versus 9. 7x for Nomura Holdings, Inc. — 9. 6x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis.

All stocks in this comparison pay dividends.

Nomura Holdings, Inc. (NMR) offers the highest yield at 4. 8%, versus 1. 6% for Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group, Inc. (MUFG).

For long-horizon retirement investors, Mitsubishi UFJ Financial Group, Inc.

(MUFG) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 1. 08), 1. 6% yield, +346. 1% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (MUFG: +346. 1%, NMR: +141. 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.