Moodys vs S&P Global
MCO and SPGI side by side, both in business services. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How MCO and SPGI compare
S&P Global is the larger company, worth 1.6 times as much as Moodys ($136B against $85.5B).
On earnings, S&P Global is cheaper: it trades at 28.1× trailing earnings, against 31.3× for Moodys.
Moodys grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (11.7% versus 9.7% for S&P Global).
Moodys keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 34.3% compared with 30.5% at S&P Global.
Both pay dividends: Moodys yields 0.82% and S&P Global 0.84%.
Moodys scores higher on the StockData Score (22 against 21 for S&P Global), which adds up 30 checks on valuation, growth, past performance, financial health and dividends.
Key numbers
A dot marks the better figure where higher or lower is clearly better.
| Metric | MCO | SPGI |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $85.5B | $136B |
| Share price | $493.91 | $460.66 |
| Change, 1 year | 4.7% | −6.7% |
| Change, 5 years | 27.6% | 0.08% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.21 | 0.98 |
| Employees | 5,300 | 45K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 22 (better) | 21 |
| Valuation score | 3 (better) | 2 |
| Growth score | 5 | 6 (better) |
| Performance score | 6 | 6 |
| Health score | 4 | 4 |
| Dividend score | 4 (better) | 3 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 31.3× | 28.1× (better) |
| P/S | 10.5× | 8.4× (better) |
| P/B | 28.3× | 4.3× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 22.0× | 20.5× (better) |
| P/FCF | 28.8× | 24.4× (better) |
| PEG | 1.39 (better) | 2.18 |
| FCF yield | 3.5% | 4.1% (better) |
| Fair value | $512.62 | $453.82 |
| Margin of safety | 3.6% (better) | −1.5% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 11.7% (better) | 9.7% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 7.5% | 15.6% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 31.1% (better) | 22.7% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 34.0% (better) | 26.3% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 7.8% | 8.7% (better) |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 75.0% (better) | 70.9% |
| Operating margin | 44.8% (better) | 44.4% |
| Net margin | 34.3% (better) | 30.5% |
| FCF margin | 36.4% (better) | 34.6% |
| Return on equity | 80.2% (better) | 15.2% |
| Return on invested capital | 33.3% (better) | 13.0% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 2.30 | 0.48 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 1.31 (better) | 1.54 |
| Interest coverage | – | 22.7× |
| Current ratio | 1.19 (better) | 0.95 |
| Altman Z-score | 7.70 (better) | 4.30 |
| Piotroski F-score | 8 (better) | 7 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 0.82% | 0.84% (better) |
| Payout ratio | 25.0% | 23.5% |
| Years of dividend growth | 16 (better) | 5 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 10.9% | 41.8% (better) |
| Buyback yield | 3.6% | 3.8% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 4.5% | 4.7% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 91.5% | 88.0% |
| Held by insiders | 0.12% | 0.11% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$13.0M | $3.6M (better) |
| Superinvestors holding | 12 | 14 (better) |
| Short interest, % of float | 1.6% | 2.2% |
Go deeper
- MCO stock overview
- MCO income statement
- MCO valuation and score
- SPGI stock overview
- SPGI income statement
- SPGI valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.