Computed head-to-head · 6 dimensions
GS vs MS
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. versus Morgan Stanley — yield, safety, growth trend, cost, scale, and tax treatment.
MS wins 3–0 on our six-dimension comparison, but GS can still be the better fit depending on your priorities — see each dimension below.
Scorecard at a glance
| Dimension | GS | MS | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yield | 1.90% | 1.98% | MS wins |
| Dividend safety | 9.0/10 | 9.5/10 | MS wins |
| Growth trend | -0.29% vs 5y | -1.00% vs 5y | MS wins |
| Volatility (beta) | 1.27 | 1.21 | Tie |
| Scale | $279.8B | $318.2B | Tie |
| Tax efficiency | Qualified-eligible | Qualified-eligible | Tie |
| Overall | 0 wins | 3 wins | MS wins |
Dimension by dimension
MS wins on yield (1.98% vs 1.90%)
On a $10,000 investment that's about $8 more in annual dividend income before taxes — though higher yield often comes with higher risk.
MS wins on safety (9.5/10 vs 9.0/10)
Our score combines yield zone, payout ratio, trend vs 5-year average, instrument type, and size. MS scores better on the weighted average of those factors.
MS (9.5/10) scores 0.5 points higher than GS (9.0/10). A higher safety score means lower historical indicators of dividend cut risk — payout ratio, yield zone, and trend all factor in.
MS shows healthier dividend-vs-price trend
MS's yield is 1.00% below its 5y average, versus 0.29% for GS. Lower (or below-average) yield trend often means price appreciation outpaced distributions — a healthier signal.
Volatility (beta) is similar
Both tickers move with comparable sensitivity to the broader market.
Comparable scale ($279.8B vs $318.2B)
Within 1.5x of each other on market cap / AUM — similar institutional footprint.
Both pay qualified-dividend-eligible distributions
Neither is structurally flagged for ordinary-income tax treatment. Most distributions should qualify for the lower long-term capital gains rate if holding-period requirements are met.
How we compare these
Every comparison on this page is computed from current public data, not written by hand. Yield comes from the most recent dividend distribution annualized over current price. Safety scores combine yield zone, payout ratio, trend vs 5-year average, instrument type, and size — see our methodology for the exact formula. Tax-efficiency flags identify covered-call ETFs, REITs, and mREITs which distribute primarily as ordinary income.
This is educational, not investment advice.Scores reflect a snapshot of public data on the "as of" dates shown on each ticker's safety page. Verify on the issuer's investor relations page or your brokerage before making decisions.
Frequently asked
Which is better for income, GS or MS?
MS wins 3–0 on our six-dimension comparison, but GS can still be the better fit depending on your priorities — see each dimension below.
GS vs MS: which has a higher dividend yield?
GS yields 1.90% and MS yields 1.98%. On a $10,000 investment that's about $8 more in annual dividend income before taxes — though higher yield often comes with higher risk.
Is GS or MS a safer dividend in 2026?
GS scores 9.0/10 (Strong) on the Infnits dividend safety scale. MS scores 9.5/10 (Strong). MS is the safer pick on our scoring model.
Which has better dividend growth, GS or MS?
MS's yield is 1.00% below its 5y average, versus 0.29% for GS. Lower (or below-average) yield trend often means price appreciation outpaced distributions — a healthier signal.
GS vs MS: which is more tax-efficient?
Neither is structurally flagged for ordinary-income tax treatment. Most distributions should qualify for the lower long-term capital gains rate if holding-period requirements are met.
Get emailed when GS vs MS data updates.
Already own GS or MS? See if the other adds anything.
Connect your brokerage and Infnits checks whether adding MS to your existing portfolio actually diversifies — or just duplicates exposure (ETF look-through included).
Check overlap with my portfolio →