Financial - Capital Markets
Compare Stocks
2 / 10Stock Comparison
SIEB vs RJF
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Financial - Capital Markets
SIEB vs RJF — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | ||
|---|---|---|
| Industry | Financial - Capital Markets | Financial - Capital Markets |
| Market Cap | $72M | $30.26B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $81M | $15.91B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $7M | $2.15B |
| Gross Margin | 43.4% | 88.2% |
| Operating Margin | 21.7% | 28.7% |
| Forward P/E | 5.4x | 12.9x |
| Total Debt | $7M | $4.54B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $33M | $11.39B |
SIEB vs RJF — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | May 20 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Siebert Financial C… (SIEB) | 100 | 26.2 | -73.8% |
| Raymond James Finan… (RJF) | 100 | 332.4 | +232.4% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: SIEB vs RJF
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
SIEB carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for growth exposure and sleep-well-at-night.
- Rev growth 16.1%, EPS growth 57.1%
- Lower volatility, beta 1.58, Low D/E 8.1%, current ratio 1.15x
- PEG 0.22 vs RJF's 0.60
RJF is the clearest fit if your priority is income & stability and long-term compounding.
- Dividend streak 22 yrs, beta 1.05, yield 1.3%
- 394.5% 10Y total return vs SIEB's 67.2%
- Beta 1.05, yield 1.3%, current ratio 0.32x
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 16.1% NII/revenue growth vs RJF's 7.9% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (5.4x vs 12.9x), PEG 0.22 vs 0.60 | |
| Quality / Margins | Efficiency ratio 0.2% vs RJF's 0.6% (lower = leaner) | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 1.05 vs SIEB's 1.58 | |
| Dividends | 1.3% yield; 22-year raise streak; the other pay no meaningful dividend | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +8.7% vs SIEB's -52.0% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | Efficiency ratio 0.2% vs RJF's 0.6% |
SIEB vs RJF — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
SIEB vs RJF — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 2 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
RJF leads this category, winning 4 of 5 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
RJF is the larger business by revenue, generating $15.9B annually — 197.6x SIEB's $81M. Profitability is closely matched — net margins range from 16.5% (SIEB) to 13.4% (RJF).
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $81M | $15.9B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $11M | $2.9B |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | $7M | $2.1B |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | -$49M | $1.5B |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +43.4% | +88.2% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | +21.7% | +28.7% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | +16.5% | +13.4% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | +10.4% | +14.1% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | — | — |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -58.2% | +15.3% |
Valuation Metrics
SIEB leads this category, winning 6 of 6 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 5.4x trailing earnings, SIEB trades at a 64% valuation discount to RJF's 14.9x P/E. Adjusting for growth (PEG ratio), SIEB offers better value at 0.22x vs RJF's 0.69x — a lower PEG means you pay less per unit of expected earnings growth.
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $72M | $30.3B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $47M | $23.4B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | 5.42x | 14.91x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | — | 12.90x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | 0.22x | 0.69x |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 2.47x | 4.92x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 0.90x | 1.90x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 0.84x | 2.54x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | 8.62x | 13.47x |
Profitability & Efficiency
RJF leads this category, winning 6 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
RJF delivers a 16.4% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $16 in annual profit, vs $8 for SIEB. SIEB carries lower financial leverage with a 0.08x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to RJF's 0.36x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), RJF scores 6/9 vs SIEB's 5/9, reflecting solid financial health.
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | +7.9% | +16.4% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | +1.2% | +2.5% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | +15.4% | +20.9% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | +20.3% | +22.0% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 5 | 6 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.08x | 0.36x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | -$26M | -$6.8B |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $33M | $11.4B |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $7M | $4.5B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | 24.59x | 1.57x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
RJF leads this category, winning 6 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in RJF five years ago would be worth $17,784 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $5,056 for SIEB. Over the past 12 months, RJF leads with a +8.7% total return vs SIEB's -52.0%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors RJF at 22.7% vs SIEB's -6.9% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | -50.1% | -5.5% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | -52.0% | +8.7% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -19.4% | +84.9% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -49.4% | +77.8% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +67.2% | +394.5% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | -6.9% | +22.7% |
Risk & Volatility
RJF leads this category, winning 2 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
RJF is the less volatile stock with a 1.05 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than SIEB's 1.58 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. RJF currently trades 86.4% from its 52-week high vs SIEB's 31.0% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 1.58x | 1.05x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $5.77 | $177.66 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $1.68 | $138.82 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +31.0% | +86.4% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 40.8 | 65.1 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 31K | 1.3M |
Analyst Outlook
RJF leads this category, winning 1 of 1 comparable metric.
Analyst Outlook
RJF is the only dividend payer here at 1.31% yield — a key consideration for income-focused portfolios.
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | — | Hold |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | — | $169.00 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | — | 24 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | — | +1.3% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 0 | 22 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | — | $2.01 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | 0.0% | +4.2% |
RJF leads in 5 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow, Profitability & Efficiency). SIEB leads in 1 (Valuation Metrics).
SIEB vs RJF: Frequently Asked Questions
9 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is SIEB or RJF a better buy right now?
For growth investors, Siebert Financial Corp.
(SIEB) is the stronger pick with 16. 1% revenue growth year-over-year, versus 7. 9% for Raymond James Financial, Inc. (RJF). Siebert Financial Corp. (SIEB) offers the better valuation at 5. 4x trailing P/E, making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Raymond James Financial, Inc. (RJF) a "Hold" — based on 24 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 — SIEB or RJF?
On trailing P/E, Siebert Financial Corp.
(SIEB) is the cheapest at 5. 4x versus Raymond James Financial, Inc. at 14. 9x.
03Which is the better long-term investment — SIEB or RJF?
Over the past 5 years, Raymond James Financial, Inc.
(RJF) delivered a total return of +77. 8%, compared to -49. 4% for Siebert Financial Corp. (SIEB). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: RJF returned +394. 5% versus SIEB's +67. 2%. 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 — SIEB or RJF?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Raymond James Financial, Inc.
(RJF) is the lower-risk stock at 1. 05β versus Siebert Financial Corp. 's 1. 58β — meaning SIEB is approximately 51% more volatile than RJF relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Siebert Financial Corp. (SIEB) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 8% versus 36% for Raymond James Financial, Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — SIEB or RJF?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), Siebert Financial Corp.
(SIEB) is pulling ahead at 16. 1% versus 7. 9% for Raymond James Financial, Inc. (RJF). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Siebert Financial Corp. grew EPS 57. 1% year-over-year, compared to 6. 2% for Raymond James Financial, 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 — SIEB or RJF?
Siebert Financial Corp.
(SIEB) is the more profitable company, earning 16. 5% net margin versus 13. 4% for Raymond James Financial, Inc. — meaning it keeps 16. 5% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: RJF leads at 28. 7% versus 21. 7% for SIEB. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — RJF leads at 88. 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.
07Which pays a better dividend — SIEB or RJF?
In this comparison, RJF (1.
3% yield) pays a dividend. SIEB does not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
08Is SIEB or RJF better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, Raymond James Financial, Inc.
(RJF) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 1. 05), 1. 3% yield, +394. 5% 10Y return). Siebert Financial Corp. (SIEB) carries a higher beta of 1. 58 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (RJF: +394. 5%, SIEB: +67. 2%), 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.
09What are the main differences between SIEB and RJF?
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: SIEB is a small-cap high-growth stock; RJF is a mid-cap deep-value stock. RJF pays a dividend while SIEB 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 both.
You Might Also Compare
Based on how these companies actually compete and overlap — not just which sector they're filed under.