Specialty Business Services
Compare Stocks
5 / 10Stock Comparison
TRI vs SPGI vs MCO vs ICE vs FDS
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Financial - Data & Stock Exchanges
Financial - Data & Stock Exchanges
Financial - Data & Stock Exchanges
Financial - Data & Stock Exchanges
TRI vs SPGI vs MCO vs ICE vs FDS — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Specialty Business Services | Financial - Data & Stock Exchanges | Financial - Data & Stock Exchanges | Financial - Data & Stock Exchanges | Financial - Data & Stock Exchanges |
| Market Cap | $40.72B | $126.89B | $81.04B | $88.45B | $9.63B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $7.66B | $15.34B | $7.72B | $12.64B | $2.32B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $1.53B | $4.78B | $2.50B | $3.30B | $600M |
| Gross Margin | 53.7% | 70.2% | 68.2% | 61.9% | 52.7% |
| Operating Margin | 28.8% | 42.2% | 44.8% | 38.7% | 32.2% |
| Forward P/E | 21.2x | 21.8x | 27.4x | 19.5x | 12.6x |
| Total Debt | $2.12B | $14.20B | $7.35B | $20.28B | $1.56B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $511M | $1.75B | $2.38B | $837M | $338M |
TRI vs SPGI vs MCO vs ICE vs FDS — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | May 20 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Thomson Reuters Cor… (TRI) | 100 | 131.5 | +31.5% |
| S&P Global Inc. (SPGI) | 100 | 131.9 | +31.9% |
| Moody's Corporation (MCO) | 100 | 170.9 | +70.9% |
| Intercontinental Ex… (ICE) | 100 | 160.6 | +60.6% |
| FactSet Research Sy… (FDS) | 100 | 72.8 | -27.2% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: TRI vs SPGI vs MCO vs ICE vs FDS
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
TRI is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if dividends is your priority.
- 2.5% yield, 7-year raise streak, vs MCO's 0.9%
Among these 5 stocks, SPGI doesn't own a clear edge in any measured category.
MCO carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for growth exposure and long-term compounding.
- Rev growth 8.9%, EPS growth 21.4%
- 409.5% 10Y total return vs ICE's 225.3%
- 8.9% NII/revenue growth vs TRI's 4.8%
- 31.9% margin vs TRI's 19.9%
ICE ranks third and is worth considering specifically for sleep-well-at-night and defensive.
- Lower volatility, beta 0.33, Low D/E 69.9%, current ratio 1.02x
- Beta 0.33, yield 1.2%, current ratio 1.02x
- Beta 0.33 vs MCO's 0.86, lower leverage
FDS is the clearest fit if your priority is income & stability and valuation efficiency.
- Dividend streak 21 yrs, beta 0.43, yield 1.9%
- PEG 1.26 vs MCO's 3.51
- Lower P/E (12.6x vs 27.4x), PEG 1.26 vs 3.51
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 8.9% NII/revenue growth vs TRI's 4.8% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (12.6x vs 27.4x), PEG 1.26 vs 3.51 | |
| Quality / Margins | 31.9% margin vs TRI's 19.9% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.33 vs MCO's 0.86, lower leverage | |
| Dividends | 2.5% yield, 7-year raise streak, vs MCO's 0.9% | |
| Momentum (1Y) | -1.5% vs TRI's -50.0% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 16.2% ROA vs ICE's 2.3%, ROIC 22.5% vs 7.5% |
TRI vs SPGI vs MCO vs ICE vs FDS — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
TRI vs SPGI vs MCO vs ICE vs FDS — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 5 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
MCO leads in 2 of 6 categories
SPGI leads 1 • FDS leads 1 • TRI leads 0 • ICE leads 0 • 2 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
SPGI leads this category, winning 3 of 5 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
SPGI is the larger business by revenue, generating $15.3B annually — 6.6x FDS's $2.3B. MCO is the more profitable business, keeping 31.9% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to TRI's 19.9%.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $7.7B | $15.3B | $7.7B | $12.6B | $2.3B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $3.2B | $7.8B | $4.0B | $6.5B | $947M |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | $1.5B | $4.8B | $2.5B | $3.3B | $600M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | $1.7B | $5.6B | $3.0B | $4.3B | $647M |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +53.7% | +70.2% | +68.2% | +61.9% | +52.7% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | +28.8% | +42.2% | +44.8% | +38.7% | +32.2% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | +19.9% | +29.2% | +31.9% | +26.1% | +25.7% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | +22.7% | +35.6% | +33.4% | +33.9% | +26.6% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +8.3% | — | — | — | — |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +7.6% | +32.5% | +7.8% | +23.1% | +4.4% |
Valuation Metrics
FDS leads this category, winning 6 of 7 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 14.4x trailing earnings, FDS trades at a 57% valuation discount to MCO's 33.4x P/E. Adjusting for growth (PEG ratio), FDS offers better value at 1.44x vs MCO's 4.29x — a lower PEG means you pay less per unit of expected earnings growth.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $40.7B | $126.9B | $81.0B | $88.4B | $9.6B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $42.3B | $139.3B | $86.0B | $107.9B | $10.9B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | 27.46x | 29.24x | 33.44x | 27.06x | 14.40x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | 21.21x | 21.84x | 27.37x | 19.48x | 12.62x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | 3.66x | 3.36x | 4.29x | 3.05x | 1.44x |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 14.36x | 18.20x | 21.86x | 16.71x | 11.59x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 5.35x | 8.27x | 10.50x | 7.00x | 4.15x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 3.52x | 3.62x | 19.56x | 3.08x | 3.93x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | 19.84x | 23.26x | 31.47x | 20.62x | 15.60x |
Profitability & Efficiency
MCO leads this category, winning 5 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
MCO delivers a 64.1% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $64 in annual profit, vs $12 for ICE. TRI carries lower financial leverage with a 0.18x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to MCO's 1.75x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), MCO scores 9/9 vs TRI's 6/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | +12.7% | +12.9% | +64.1% | +11.6% | +27.7% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | +8.5% | +7.9% | +16.2% | +2.3% | +14.2% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | +11.2% | +9.7% | +22.5% | +7.5% | +15.5% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | +13.6% | +12.1% | +27.9% | +9.5% | +20.9% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 6 | 7 | 9 | 9 | 7 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.18x | 0.39x | 1.75x | 0.70x | 0.71x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $1.6B | $12.5B | $5.0B | $19.4B | $1.2B |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $511M | $1.7B | $2.4B | $837M | $338M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $2.1B | $14.2B | $7.4B | $20.3B | $1.6B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | 18.32x | 22.69x | 17.22x | 6.53x | 14.22x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
MCO leads this category, winning 4 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in ICE five years ago would be worth $14,335 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $7,219 for FDS. Over the past 12 months, MCO leads with a -1.5% total return vs TRI's -50.0%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors MCO at 15.2% vs FDS's -16.3% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | -26.8% | -16.2% | -8.2% | -2.1% | -21.0% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | -50.0% | -14.5% | -1.5% | -10.4% | -48.1% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -18.2% | +23.8% | +52.8% | +50.8% | -41.3% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +5.7% | +14.2% | +41.4% | +43.4% | -27.8% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +155.3% | +337.1% | +409.5% | +225.3% | +68.6% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | -6.5% | +7.4% | +15.2% | +14.7% | -16.3% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — MCO and ICE each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
ICE is the less volatile stock with a 0.33 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than MCO's 0.86 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. MCO currently trades 83.6% from its 52-week high vs TRI's 42.1% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 0.38x | 0.58x | 0.86x | 0.33x | 0.43x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $221.97 | $579.05 | $546.88 | $189.35 | $474.79 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $79.71 | $381.61 | $402.28 | $143.17 | $189.07 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +42.1% | +74.0% | +83.6% | +82.5% | +47.2% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 48.2 | 42.4 | 48.0 | 38.8 | 39.7 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 2.3M | 1.8M | 1.1M | 3.0M | 908K |
Analyst Outlook
Evenly matched — TRI and MCO each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: TRI as "Buy", SPGI as "Buy", MCO as "Buy", ICE as "Buy", FDS as "Hold". Consensus price targets imply 57.5% upside for TRI (target: $147) vs 19.2% for MCO (target: $545). For income investors, TRI offers the higher dividend yield at 2.51% vs MCO's 0.85%.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Buy | Buy | Buy | Buy | Hold |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $147.10 | $548.11 | $544.75 | $195.71 | $277.89 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 27 | 28 | 32 | 36 | 28 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | +2.5% | +0.9% | +0.9% | +1.2% | +1.9% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 7 | 12 | 22 | 14 | 21 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | $2.34 | $3.83 | $3.90 | $1.93 | $4.17 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | +2.5% | +3.9% | +2.1% | +1.6% | +3.1% |
MCO leads in 2 of 6 categories (Profitability & Efficiency, Total Returns). SPGI leads in 1 (Income & Cash Flow). 2 tied.
TRI vs SPGI vs MCO vs ICE vs FDS: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is TRI or SPGI or MCO or ICE or FDS a better buy right now?
For growth investors, Moody's Corporation (MCO) is the stronger pick with 8.
9% revenue growth year-over-year, versus 4. 8% for Thomson Reuters Corporation (TRI). FactSet Research Systems Inc. (FDS) offers the better valuation at 14. 4x trailing P/E (12. 6x 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.
02Which has the better valuation — TRI or SPGI or MCO or ICE or FDS?
On trailing P/E, FactSet Research Systems Inc.
(FDS) is the cheapest at 14. 4x versus Moody's Corporation at 33. 4x. On forward P/E, FactSet Research Systems Inc. is actually cheaper at 12. 6x. The PEG ratio (P/E divided by earnings growth rate) is the most growth-adjusted single valuation metric: FactSet Research Systems Inc. wins at 1. 26x versus Moody's Corporation's 3. 51x — a reasonable growth-adjusted valuation.
03Which is the better long-term investment — TRI or SPGI or MCO or ICE or FDS?
Over the past 5 years, Intercontinental Exchange, Inc.
(ICE) delivered a total return of +43. 4%, compared to -27. 8% for FactSet Research Systems Inc. (FDS). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: MCO returned +409. 5% versus FDS's +68. 6%. 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 — TRI or SPGI or MCO or ICE or FDS?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Intercontinental Exchange, Inc.
(ICE) is the lower-risk stock at 0. 33β versus Moody's Corporation's 0. 86β — meaning MCO is approximately 164% 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 175% for Moody's Corporation — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — TRI or SPGI or MCO or ICE or FDS?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), Moody's Corporation (MCO) is pulling ahead at 8.
9% versus 4. 8% for Thomson Reuters Corporation (TRI). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Moody's Corporation grew EPS 21. 4% 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.
06Which has better profit margins — TRI or SPGI or MCO or ICE or FDS?
Moody's Corporation (MCO) is the more profitable company, earning 31.
9% net margin versus 20. 1% for Thomson Reuters Corporation — meaning it keeps 31. 9% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: MCO leads at 44. 8% versus 26. 3% for TRI. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — SPGI leads at 70. 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.
07Is TRI or SPGI or MCO or ICE or FDS 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, FactSet Research Systems Inc. (FDS) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 1. 26x versus Moody's Corporation's 3. 51x. A PEG below 1. 5 suggests fair-to-attractive pricing relative to expected growth. On forward earnings alone, FactSet Research Systems Inc. (FDS) trades at 12. 6x forward P/E versus 27. 4x for Moody's Corporation — 14. 8x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for TRI: 57. 5% to $147. 10.
08Which pays a better dividend — TRI or SPGI or MCO or ICE or FDS?
All stocks in this comparison pay dividends.
Thomson Reuters Corporation (TRI) offers the highest yield at 2. 5%, versus 0. 9% for Moody's Corporation (MCO).
09Is TRI or SPGI or MCO or ICE or FDS better for a retirement portfolio?
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, +225. 3% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (ICE: +225. 3%, MCO: +409. 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.
10What are the main differences between TRI and SPGI and MCO and ICE and FDS?
These companies operate in different sectors (TRI (Industrials) and SPGI (Financial Services) and MCO (Financial Services) and ICE (Financial Services) and FDS (Financial Services)), which means they face different economic cycles, regulatory environments, and macro sensitivities — making direct comparison nuanced.
In terms of investment character: TRI is a mid-cap quality compounder stock; SPGI is a mid-cap quality compounder stock; MCO is a mid-cap quality compounder stock; ICE is a mid-cap quality compounder stock; FDS is a small-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.
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.