MRSH vs. WFC
MRSH (Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc) and WFC (Wells Fargo & Company) are both stocks. Both are in the Financial Services sector — MRSH in Insurance Brokers, WFC in Banks - Diversified. Over the past 10 years, MRSH returned 11.75%/yr vs 8.95%/yr for WFC. At a 0.41 correlation, their price movements are largely independent.
Performance
MRSH vs. WFC - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, MRSH achieves a -8.15% return, which is significantly higher than WFC's -9.20% return. Over the past 10 years, MRSH has outperformed WFC with an annualized return of 11.75%, while WFC has yielded a comparatively lower 8.95% annualized return.
MRSH
- 1D
- 0.32%
- 1M
- 4.74%
- YTD
- -8.15%
- 6M
- -8.49%
- 1Y
- -20.92%
- 3Y*
- -0.08%
- 5Y*
- 5.55%
- 10Y*
- 11.75%
WFC
- 1D
- 1.61%
- 1M
- 14.04%
- YTD
- -9.20%
- 6M
- -8.77%
- 1Y
- 18.25%
- 3Y*
- 28.38%
- 5Y*
- 15.64%
- 10Y*
- 8.95%
MRSH vs. WFC - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
MRSH Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc | -8.15% | -11.26% | 13.75% | 16.15% | -3.45% | 50.83% | 6.86% | 42.33% | -0.14% | 22.73% |
WFC Wells Fargo & Company | -9.20% | 35.57% | 46.48% | 22.94% | -11.92% | 61.15% | -41.65% | 21.44% | -21.83% | 13.21% |
Correlation
The correlation between MRSH and WFC is 0.20, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.20 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.18 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.29 |
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.34 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 30, 1987 | 0.41 |
Over the past year, the correlation between MRSH and WFC has dropped to 0.20 - well below their long-term average of 0.41, suggesting their price drivers have been diverging.
Fundamentals
MRSH:
$81.98B
WFC:
$269.39B
MRSH:
$7.99
WFC:
$6.73
MRSH:
21.11
WFC:
12.44
MRSH:
2.46
WFC:
1.07
MRSH:
3.01
WFC:
2.15
MRSH:
5.54
WFC:
1.65
MRSH:
$27.52B
WFC:
$125.70B
MRSH:
$11.66B
WFC:
$81.14B
MRSH:
$6.68B
WFC:
$31.58B
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
MRSH vs. WFC — Risk / Return Rank
MRSH
WFC
MRSH vs. WFC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc (MRSH) and Wells Fargo & Company (WFC). Risk-adjusted metrics are performance indicators that assess an investment's returns in relation to its risk, enabling a more accurate comparison of different investment options.
Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.
| MRSH | WFC | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -1.51 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -2.15 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 0.85 | 1.12 | -0.27 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | -0.80 | 0.68 | -1.49 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | -1.40 | 1.54 | -2.94 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
MRSH vs. WFC - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum MRSH drawdown since its inception was -67.46%, smaller than the maximum WFC drawdown of -79.01%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MRSH and WFC.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| MRSH | WFC | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -67.46% | -79.01% | +11.55% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -27.01% | -23.02% | -3.99% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -34.36% | -24.73% | -9.63% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -34.36% | -37.10% | +2.74% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -35.80% | -64.46% | +28.66% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -29.62% | -12.21% | -17.41% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -17.41% | -15.35% | -2.06% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 15.50% | 10.18% | +5.32% |
Volatility
MRSH vs. WFC - Volatility Comparison
Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc (MRSH) has a higher volatility of 6.91% compared to Wells Fargo & Company (WFC) at 5.95%. This indicates that MRSH's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than WFC based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| MRSH | WFC | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 6.91% | 5.95% | +0.96% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 19.10% | 19.95% | -0.85% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 23.47% | 26.75% | -3.28% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 20.20% | 30.23% | -10.03% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 20.94% | 32.28% | -11.34% |
Dividends
MRSH vs. WFC - Dividend Comparison
MRSH's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.13%, which matches WFC's 2.15% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
MRSH Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc | 2.13% | 1.85% | 1.44% | 1.37% | 1.36% | 1.15% | 1.57% | 1.56% | 1.98% | 1.76% | 1.92% | 2.13% |
WFC Wells Fargo & Company | 2.15% | 1.82% | 2.14% | 2.64% | 2.66% | 1.25% | 4.04% | 3.57% | 3.56% | 2.54% | 2.75% | 2.71% |
Financials
MRSH vs. WFC - Financials Comparison
This section allows you to compare key financial metrics between Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc and Wells Fargo & Company. You can select fields from income statements, balance sheets, and cash flow statements to easily visualize and compare the financial health of both companies.
Total Revenue: Total amount of money received from sales and other business activities
MRSH vs. WFC - Profitability Comparison
MRSH - Gross Margin
Gross margin is calculated as gross profit divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Jun 2026, Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc reported a gross profit of 3.47B and revenue of 7.60B. Therefore, the gross margin over that period was 45.6%.
WFC - Gross Margin
Gross margin is calculated as gross profit divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Jun 2026, Wells Fargo & Company reported a gross profit of 20.31B and revenue of 31.80B. Therefore, the gross margin over that period was 63.9%.
MRSH - Operating Margin
Operating margin is calculated as operating income divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Jun 2026, Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc reported an operating income of 1.75B and revenue of 7.60B, resulting in an operating margin of 23.1%.
WFC - Operating Margin
Operating margin is calculated as operating income divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Jun 2026, Wells Fargo & Company reported an operating income of 5.85B and revenue of 31.80B, resulting in an operating margin of 18.4%.
MRSH - Net Margin
Net margin is calculated as net income divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Jun 2026, Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc reported a net income of 1.15B and revenue of 7.60B, resulting in a net margin of 15.1%.
WFC - Net Margin
Net margin is calculated as net income divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Jun 2026, Wells Fargo & Company reported a net income of 5.29B and revenue of 31.80B, resulting in a net margin of 16.6%.
Frequently Asked Questions
MRSH and WFC have a correlation of 0.20, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
MRSH has higher volatility (6.91%) compared to WFC (5.95%). In terms of maximum drawdown, MRSH dropped -67.46% vs WFC's -79.01%.
WFC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.59 vs -0.93), meaning it's delivered slightly more return per unit of risk over the trailing 12 months. However, this ranking shifts over time - use the Risk/Return Score above for a more comprehensive view that combines Sharpe, Sortino, and other measures used by quantitative funds.
Find the right allocation for MRSH and WFC
Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.
Open Portfolio Optimizer