Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. BAM scored 77.0, TROW scored 75.0 — BAM leads.
Compare another set
BAM
Brookfield Asset Management Ltd.
Asset Management · Financial strength
73.7Fin
$44.25 · $70.7B
fundamentals as of
Strength gap
17.0
TROW leads
TROW
T. Rowe Price Group, Inc.
Asset Management · Financial strength
90.7Fin
$101.39 · $21.6B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestTROW10.2x
Fastest growthBAM+15.5%
Side by side · every name on one set of axes
Growth against the P/E multiple. Up and to the right is cheaper and faster — the quality-growth idea in one picture. Points beyond the axis are pinned to the edge and marked off-scale rather than allowed to compress everything else.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
BAM
TROW
+15.5%B+
Rev
+3.1%C+
25.4xC
P/E
10.2xA-
26.8%A-
ROE
19.4%B+
9.74D
P/B
2.02C+
4.4%B+
Yield
4.9%B+
Winner per row is the stronger grade; where grades tie, the better figure breaks it. A true tie or a missing value shows no highlight.
The companies
BAMBrookfield Asset Management Ltd.
Asset Management · $44.25 · beta 1.32
Why now
Asset Management · market cap $70.7b. Down 23% from 52-week high of $57.56 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +16%, comfortably above the S&P median. 19 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $56.50 (implying +28% upside).
Moat
Net margin 49% is exceptional — pricing-power territory rare outside premium software, branded staples, and specialty pharma. ROE 27% — top-decile capital efficiency. Either pricing leverage, low capital intensity, or aggressive buybacks; the durability story depends on which. $70.7b market cap gives the company enough scale to absorb fixed costs that subscale competitors can't, without yet being so large that growth has to come from acquisition.
Risk
Dividend payout 108% of earnings on a 4.4% yield — distribution coverage is thin; one earnings stumble could force a dividend cut. P/S 12.3x embeds aggressive forward growth — disappointing top-line guidance would compress the multiple hard. Duration mismatch — the asset and liability books reprice on different schedules; a rapid move in rates either direction can compress net interest margin before management can reposition.
TROWT. Rowe Price Group, Inc.
Asset Management · $101.39 · beta 1.47
Why now
Asset Management · market cap $21.6b. 17% off the 52-week high of $122.00. 13 sell-side analysts rate this a Hold with a mean 1-yr target of $106.77 (implying +5% upside).
Moat
Net margin 29% sits well above the S&P median (~11%) — suggests structural pricing advantage or cost discipline competitors can't quickly close. ROE 19% is above 15% — the equity base is compounding at a rate the market struggles to discount accurately.
Risk
Beta 1.47 implies above-market volatility — position-size to the drawdowns this name will produce in a market correction, not to its bull-case return. Balance-sheet financial — book value, net interest margin, and credit loss provisions are the lever points; a rates regime change or a deterioration in the loan book moves the stock more than EPS does.
Verdict — model-derived comparison
Generating verdict… typically 5–10 seconds
Not investment advice. The Bull Rankings publishes a quantitative ranking model and accompanying analysis for general informational purposes only. Nothing on this page is a recommendation to buy, sell, or hold any security; nothing is personalized to your circumstances, risk tolerance, or tax situation. Investing carries the risk of loss — invest at your own risk and consider consulting a licensed financial professional before acting on anything you read here. See terms and methodology for full disclosures.
Common questions
Is BAM or TROW the better stock?
BAM scores higher: BAM 77.0, TROW 75.0 out of 100 on the Bull Rankings quality-growth score, which blends business quality, growth and valuation into one number. A higher score means a stronger business at a more reasonable price — it is not a price target or a recommendation.
How are BAM and TROW scored?
Each carries the same 0–100 quality-growth score used everywhere on the site, built from three pillars — quality (profitability and returns on capital), growth (revenue and earnings), and value (what you pay for them) — combined as a geometric mean, so a weak pillar cannot be papered over by a strong one.
How current is this comparison?
The whole universe is re-scored every trading day after the US market close, so the scores and fundamentals here reflect the latest published edition.