Morgan Stanley Common Stock (MS) scored on five pillars from its reported financial statements, and ranked against 261 Financials companies.
Morgan Stanley Common Stock (MS) scores 3.6 out of 10 as of , computed from its reported financial statements. That reads as low quality. The reading rests on profitability, and efficiency is what holds it back.
One pillar, solvency, is unscored because the filings behind it carry too little to judge. It is shown as a dash rather than a zero, and the overall score is the weighted average of what could be scored.
Data provided by Twelve Data. Scores are computed by Lemma Analysis from reported financials.
Morgan Stanley Common Stock’s returns on capital beat their cost in most measured years: 4 of 4 indicators passed.
Quantitative signs of a moat, read from the filed statements. This is not a judgement of where it comes from (brand, network effects, switching costs). How Lemma measures a moat →
On the filings behind it, Morgan Stanley Common Stock earns 3.6 out of 10 for business quality as of October 16, 2026. That is low quality on our scale. A low reading means the reported numbers show weakness on several pillars at once, which is a reason to understand the business before anything else. The figure is a weighted average of five pillars, each scored from 0 to 10 against sector-aware benchmarks from reported statements.
Set against 261 Financials companies, Morgan Stanley Common Stock lands at the 14th percentile, among the weakest quarter of its peers. For reference, the middle of the group scores 5.9 and a company needs 6.8 to reach its top quarter, which leaves Morgan Stanley Common Stock well below the median.
Profitability scores 4.8 out of 10, which reads as average. The median across 255 Financials companies is 6.8, so Morgan Stanley Common Stock is well below its peers on this pillar and ranks at the 22nd percentile. Profitability in the middle of the range is neither a moat nor a warning: margins and returns look like those of an ordinary business in this line of work.
There is no solvency score for Morgan Stanley Common Stock: too little of the pillar could be measured from the filings to give an honest reading. The overall is therefore the weighted average of the other pillars. Across 140 Financials companies the median for this pillar is 8.5. Without it the overall says nothing about how comfortably the company carries its debt.
Growth scores 4.7 out of 10, which reads as average. The median across 241 Financials companies is 4.6, so Morgan Stanley Common Stock is in line with its peers on this pillar and ranks at the 51st percentile. A middling growth reading is typical of a mature company whose next step depends on reinvestment rather than on its market growing for it.
Morgan Stanley Common Stock’s efficiency score is 1.5 out of 10 (weak). Against a median of 5.8 among 211 Financials companies, that is well below the group and the 4th percentile. Weak efficiency means more capital is tied up to produce each unit of output, or less of reported profit is arriving as cash.
Predictability scores 2.7 out of 10, which reads as weak. The median across 256 Financials companies is 4.9, so Morgan Stanley Common Stock is well below its peers on this pillar and ranks at the 17th percentile. When results are this uneven, the averages behind the other pillars hide a lot of movement, and a longer history tells more than the latest year.
The profile is uneven. Profitability leads at 4.8 while efficiency trails at 1.5, a gap of 3.3 points, so the overall averages a clear strength against a clear soft spot. Leading with profitability is the most valuable kind of strength, because margins and returns are what the other pillars ultimately feed. An efficiency shortfall means profit is not turning into cash as readily as it could.
Closing the gap on efficiency would do the most for the overall. At the median of Financials companies, 5.8, Morgan Stanley Common Stock would score about 4.4 instead of 3.6. Only four of the five pillars could be scored. Together they carry 80 of the 100 weight points (the full set is profitability 25, solvency 20, growth 20, efficiency 15, predictability 20), and the overall is the weighted average of those alone.
These are the Financials companies closest to Morgan Stanley Common Stock in market value. Each has its own page scored on the same five pillars, so the comparison is like for like.
How much profit the company generates from its capital and sales.
The company’s ability to service debt and meet its obligations.
How fast revenue, earnings and cash flow are compounding.
How well assets and earnings convert into cash and output.
How stable and consistent results have been over time.
Each metric is scored from 0 to 10 against sector-aware benchmarks, where higher is better. Metrics roll up into five pillars, and the pillars combine into the overall score using the weights shown. Sector-sensitive metrics are judged relative to peers in the same sector.
This score is a systematic, backward-looking read of reported fundamentals. It does not judge valuation, management quality, competitive moat, or future prospects, and can be distorted by one-off items or unusual accounting. Treat it as a starting point, not a recommendation.
Educational only. Not investment advice.
On this reading Morgan Stanley Common Stock scores 3.6 out of 10, which reads as low quality. Its strongest pillar is profitability, its weakest is efficiency. Quality is not the same as a good investment: the score says nothing about the price you would pay.
Morgan Stanley Common Stock ranks at the 14th percentile of the 261 Financials companies Lemma publishes a score for. The median there is 5.9 and the top quarter starts at 6.8, against Morgan Stanley Common Stock’s 3.6.
Five pillars, each scored from 0 to 10 against sector-aware benchmarks and then weighted into one overall reading: profitability, solvency, growth, efficiency and predictability. Everything comes from reported financials, and nothing comes from price, sentiment or forecasts.
This page last changed on October 16, 2026. The score moves with the financial statements, so the page changes when a new filing moves the reading rather than on a schedule. Live figures for MS are in the app.
No. Quality and valuation are separate questions, and a good business at the wrong price is still a bad purchase. Score the business here, then price it with a DCF you control.
Inside Lemma Analysis the same five pillars run on every company we cover, with the metrics behind each one, current fundamentals, a DCF you control and a watchlist that tells you when the price catches up.
Free to start · No credit card