TRI vs ICE

For growth investors, Intercontinental Exchange, Inc.

(ICE) is the stronger pick with 7. 5% revenue growth year-over-year, versus 4. 8% for Thomson Reuters Corporation (TRI). Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. (ICE) offers the better valuation at 26. 9x trailing P/E (19. 1x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Thomson Reuters Corporation (TRI) a "Buy" — based on 27 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, Intercontinental Exchange, Inc.

(ICE) is the cheapest at 26. 9x versus Thomson Reuters Corporation at 28. 1x. On forward P/E, Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. is actually cheaper at 19. 1x. The PEG ratio (P/E divided by earnings growth rate) is the most growth-adjusted single valuation metric: Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. wins at 2. 15x versus Thomson Reuters Corporation's 2. 78x.

Over the past 5 years, Intercontinental Exchange, Inc.

(ICE) delivered a total return of +42. 7%, compared to +9. 2% for Thomson Reuters Corporation (TRI). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: ICE returned +222. 9% versus TRI's +153. 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), Intercontinental Exchange, Inc.

(ICE) is the lower-risk stock at 0. 33β versus Thomson Reuters Corporation's 0. 38β — meaning TRI is approximately 15% more volatile than ICE relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Thomson Reuters Corporation (TRI) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 18% versus 70% for Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.

By revenue growth (latest reported year), Intercontinental Exchange, Inc.

(ICE) is pulling ahead at 7. 5% versus 4. 8% for Thomson Reuters Corporation (TRI). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. grew EPS 20. 7% year-over-year, compared to -30. 5% for Thomson Reuters 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.

Intercontinental Exchange, Inc.

(ICE) is the more profitable company, earning 26. 1% net margin versus 20. 1% for Thomson Reuters Corporation — meaning it keeps 26. 1% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: ICE leads at 38. 7% versus 26. 3% for TRI. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — ICE leads at 61. 9%, 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, Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. (ICE) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 2. 15x versus Thomson Reuters Corporation's 2. 78x. Both stocks trade at elevated growth-adjusted valuations, so expected growth needs to materialise. On forward earnings alone, Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. (ICE) trades at 19. 1x forward P/E versus 20. 8x for Thomson Reuters Corporation — 1. 7x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for TRI: 54. 2% to $147. 10.

All stocks in this comparison pay dividends.

Thomson Reuters Corporation (TRI) offers the highest yield at 2. 5%, versus 1. 2% for Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. (ICE).

For long-horizon retirement investors, Intercontinental Exchange, Inc.

(ICE) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0. 33), 1. 2% yield, +222. 9% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (ICE: +222. 9%, TRI: +153. 1%), 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.

These companies operate in different sectors (TRI (Industrials) and ICE (Financial Services)), which means they face different economic cycles, regulatory environments, and macro sensitivities — making direct comparison nuanced.

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.