Shell Companies
Build Your Comparison
Side-by-side financial analysisStock Comparison
BYNO vs MS vs GS vs EVR vs KO
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Financial - Capital Markets
Financial - Capital Markets
Financial - Capital Markets
Beverages - Non-Alcoholic
BYNO vs MS vs GS vs EVR vs KO — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Shell Companies | Financial - Capital Markets | Financial - Capital Markets | Financial - Capital Markets | Beverages - Non-Alcoholic |
| Market Cap | $43M | $340.97B | $337.53B | $14.15B | $355.61B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $1M | $114.98B | $125.10B | $3.88B | $49.28B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $-740K | $16.86B | $17.18B | $592M | $13.70B |
| Gross Margin | 50.0% | 57.1% | 47.5% | 99.4% | 61.7% |
| Operating Margin | 24.0% | 19.1% | 17.5% | 20.5% | 29.3% |
| Forward P/E | 79.1x | 18.0x | 17.9x | 18.6x | 25.3x |
| Total Debt | $6M | $475.56B | $609.53B | $1.16B | $45.49B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $273K | $111.69B | $164.26B | $1.47B | $10.27B |
BYNO vs MS vs GS vs EVR vs KO — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | Apr 22 | Jun 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| byNordic Acquisitio… (BYNO) | 100 | 126.8 | +26.8% |
| Morgan Stanley (MS) | 100 | 258.1 | +158.1% |
| The Goldman Sachs G… (GS) | 100 | 335.7 | +235.7% |
| Evercore Inc. (EVR) | 100 | 322.3 | +222.3% |
| The Coca-Cola Compa… (KO) | 100 | 122.3 | +22.3% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: BYNO vs MS vs GS vs EVR vs KO
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
BYNO is the clearest fit if your priority is stability.
- Beta 0.11 vs EVR's 1.83
MS is the clearest fit if your priority is long-term compounding and sleep-well-at-night.
- 8.5% 10Y total return vs EVR's 6.7%
- Lower volatility, beta 1.40, current ratio 1.17x
- Beta 1.40, yield 1.9%, current ratio 1.17x
GS has the current edge in this matchup, primarily because of its strength in valuation efficiency and bank quality.
- PEG 1.14 vs KO's 2.26
- NIM 0.7% vs MS's 0.7%
- Lower P/E (17.9x vs 25.3x), PEG 1.14 vs 2.26
- +72.7% vs BYNO's +5.0%
EVR is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if growth exposure is your priority.
- Rev growth 29.5%, EPS growth 54.7%
- 29.5% NII/revenue growth vs BYNO's -79.9%
- 14.1% ROA vs BYNO's -6.9%
KO ranks third and is worth considering specifically for income & stability.
- Dividend streak 56 yrs, beta -0.20, yield 2.5%
- 27.8% margin vs BYNO's -54.7%
- 2.5% yield, 56-year raise streak, vs GS's 1.6%, (1 stock pays no dividend)
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 29.5% NII/revenue growth vs BYNO's -79.9% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (17.9x vs 25.3x), PEG 1.14 vs 2.26 | |
| Quality / Margins | 27.8% margin vs BYNO's -54.7% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.11 vs EVR's 1.83 | |
| Dividends | 2.5% yield, 56-year raise streak, vs GS's 1.6%, (1 stock pays no dividend) | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +72.7% vs BYNO's +5.0% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 14.1% ROA vs BYNO's -6.9% |
BYNO vs MS vs GS vs EVR vs KO — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
Segment breakdown not available.
BYNO vs MS vs GS vs EVR vs KO — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 5 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
GS leads in 2 of 6 categories
EVR leads 1 • KO leads 1 • BYNO leads 0 • MS leads 0 • 2 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
Evenly matched — EVR and KO each lead in 2 of 5 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
GS is the larger business by revenue, generating $125.1B annually — 92436.3x BYNO's $1M. KO is the more profitable business, keeping 27.8% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to BYNO's -54.7%.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $1M | $115.0B | $125.1B | $3.9B | $49.3B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | -$1M | $26.6B | $24.0B | $804M | $15.5B |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | -$739,762 | $16.9B | $17.2B | $592M | $13.7B |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | -$3M | -$17.9B | -$47.2B | $1.2B | $12.6B |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +50.0% | +57.1% | +47.5% | +99.4% | +61.7% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | +24.0% | +19.1% | +17.5% | +20.5% | +29.3% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | -54.7% | +14.7% | +13.7% | +15.3% | +27.8% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | -2.1% | -15.6% | -37.7% | +30.5% | +25.5% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | — | — | — | — | +12.1% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -32.2% | +48.9% | +45.8% | +44.2% | +18.2% |
Valuation Metrics
GS leads this category, winning 5 of 7 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 20.7x trailing earnings, GS trades at a 74% valuation discount to BYNO's 79.1x P/E. Adjusting for growth (PEG ratio), GS offers better value at 1.32x vs KO's 2.43x — a lower PEG means you pay less per unit of expected earnings growth.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $43M | $341.0B | $337.5B | $14.2B | $355.6B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $49M | $704.8B | $782.8B | $13.8B | $390.8B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | 79.06x | 20.98x | 20.71x | 25.44x | 27.18x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | — | 18.00x | 17.93x | 18.60x | 25.27x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | 2.19x | 1.32x | 2.25x | 2.43x |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | — | 26.49x | 32.57x | 17.21x | 26.39x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | — | 2.97x | 2.70x | 3.65x | 7.42x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | — | 3.03x | 2.70x | 6.84x | 10.40x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | — | 7.40x | — | 11.97x | 67.15x |
Profitability & Efficiency
EVR leads this category, winning 6 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
KO delivers a 41.1% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $41 in annual profit, vs $3 for BYNO. EVR carries lower financial leverage with a 0.50x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to GS's 4.88x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), MS scores 7/9 vs BYNO's 2/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | +3.0% | +15.3% | +13.6% | +29.3% | +41.1% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | -6.9% | +1.2% | +1.0% | +14.1% | +13.1% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | — | +3.1% | +2.2% | +18.8% | +15.8% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | — | +3.3% | +4.0% | +17.6% | +17.3% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 2 | 7 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | — | 4.22x | 4.88x | 0.50x | 1.33x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $6M | $363.9B | $445.3B | -$311M | $35.2B |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $272,588 | $111.7B | $164.3B | $1.5B | $10.3B |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $6M | $475.6B | $609.5B | $1.2B | $45.5B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | — | 0.45x | 0.33x | 32.72x | 10.70x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
GS leads this category, winning 4 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in GS five years ago would be worth $30,053 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $12,778 for BYNO. Over the past 12 months, GS leads with a +72.7% total return vs BYNO's +5.0%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors GS at 48.1% vs BYNO's 6.2% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | +1.3% | +18.8% | +17.2% | +2.2% | +20.3% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | +5.0% | +65.3% | +72.7% | +46.0% | +17.2% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +19.9% | +157.5% | +224.8% | +203.4% | +47.0% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +27.8% | +154.7% | +200.5% | +173.2% | +65.6% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +27.8% | +854.4% | +666.8% | +672.5% | +121.1% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | +6.2% | +37.1% | +48.1% | +44.8% | +13.7% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — BYNO and KO each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
KO is the less volatile stock with a -0.20 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than EVR's 1.83 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. BYNO currently trades 99.2% from its 52-week high vs EVR's 91.9% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 0.11x | 1.40x | 1.60x | 1.83x | -0.20x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $12.75 | $219.16 | $1095.89 | $388.71 | $84.04 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $12.01 | $128.81 | $609.59 | $238.96 | $65.35 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +99.2% | +97.7% | +97.0% | +91.9% | +98.3% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 50.3 | 62.2 | 57.3 | 57.3 | 60.6 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 414 | 4.5M | 1.9M | 457K | 12.7M |
Analyst Outlook
KO leads this category, winning 2 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: MS as "Buy", GS as "Hold", EVR as "Buy", KO as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 7.1% upside for EVR (target: $383) vs -8.5% for GS (target: $973). For income investors, KO offers the higher dividend yield at 2.46% vs EVR's 0.91%.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | — | Buy | Hold | Buy | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | — | $201.25 | $972.70 | $382.67 | $86.13 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | — | 52 | 55 | 21 | 48 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | — | +1.9% | +1.6% | +0.9% | +2.5% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | — | 12 | 14 | 19 | 56 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | — | $4.14 | $16.62 | $3.25 | $2.04 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | +69.0% | +1.7% | +3.7% | +4.7% | +0.2% |
GS leads in 2 of 6 categories (Valuation Metrics, Total Returns). EVR leads in 1 (Profitability & Efficiency). 2 tied.
BYNO vs MS vs GS vs EVR vs KO: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is BYNO or MS or GS or EVR or KO a better buy right now?
For growth investors, Evercore Inc.
(EVR) is the stronger pick with 29. 5% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -1. 4% for The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (GS). The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (GS) offers the better valuation at 20. 7x trailing P/E (17. 9x 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 — BYNO or MS or GS or EVR or KO?
On trailing P/E, The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.
(GS) is the cheapest at 20. 7x versus byNordic Acquisition Corporation at 79. 1x. On forward P/E, The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. is actually cheaper at 17. 9x. The PEG ratio (P/E divided by earnings growth rate) is the most growth-adjusted single valuation metric: The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. wins at 1. 14x versus The Coca-Cola Company's 2. 26x — a reasonable growth-adjusted valuation.
03Which is the better long-term investment — BYNO or MS or GS or EVR or KO?
Over the past 5 years, The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.
(GS) delivered a total return of +200. 5%, compared to +27. 8% for byNordic Acquisition Corporation (BYNO). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: MS returned +854. 4% versus BYNO's +27. 8%. 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 — BYNO or MS or GS or EVR or KO?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), The Coca-Cola Company (KO) is the lower-risk stock at -0.
20β versus Evercore Inc. 's 1. 83β — meaning EVR is approximately -1014% more volatile than KO relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Evercore Inc. (EVR) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 50% versus 5% for The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — BYNO or MS or GS or EVR or KO?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), Evercore Inc.
(EVR) is pulling ahead at 29. 5% versus -1. 4% for The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (GS). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Evercore Inc. grew EPS 54. 7% year-over-year, compared to -11. 1% for byNordic Acquisition 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 — BYNO or MS or GS or EVR or KO?
The Coca-Cola Company (KO) is the more profitable company, earning 27.
3% net margin versus -54. 7% for byNordic Acquisition Corporation — meaning it keeps 27. 3% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: KO leads at 28. 7% versus 17. 5% for GS. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — EVR leads at 99. 4%, 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 BYNO or MS or GS or EVR or KO 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, The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (GS) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 1. 14x versus The Coca-Cola Company's 2. 26x. A PEG below 1. 5 suggests fair-to-attractive pricing relative to expected growth. On forward earnings alone, The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (GS) trades at 17. 9x forward P/E versus 25. 3x for The Coca-Cola Company — 7. 3x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for EVR: 7. 1% to $382. 67.
08Which pays a better dividend — BYNO or MS or GS or EVR or KO?
In this comparison, KO (2.
5% yield), MS (1. 9% yield), GS (1. 6% yield), EVR (0. 9% yield) pay a dividend. BYNO does not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
09Is BYNO or MS or GS or EVR or KO better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, The Coca-Cola Company (KO) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β -0.
20), 2. 5% yield, +121. 1% 10Y return). Evercore Inc. (EVR) carries a higher beta of 1. 83 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (KO: +121. 1%, EVR: +672. 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 BYNO and MS and GS and EVR and KO?
These companies operate in different sectors (BYNO (Financial Services) and MS (Financial Services) and GS (Financial Services) and EVR (Financial Services) and KO (Consumer Defensive)), which means they face different economic cycles, regulatory environments, and macro sensitivities — making direct comparison nuanced.
In terms of investment character: BYNO is a small-cap quality compounder stock; MS is a large-cap quality compounder stock; GS is a large-cap quality compounder stock; EVR is a mid-cap high-growth stock; KO is a large-cap quality compounder stock. MS, GS, EVR, KO pay a dividend while BYNO 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.
You Might Also Compare
Based on how these companies actually compete and overlap — not just which sector they're filed under.