buying-decisions

Growth Stocks vs Value Stocks: Which Is Better?

Confused about growth investing versus value investing — trying to pick an approach

What the Masters Would Say

The debate between growth and value investing is one of the longest-running in finance, and the honest truth -- one that most commentators miss -- is that the distinction is largely artificial. The greatest investors transcended this divide long ago.

Warren Buffett addressed this directly: "Growth and value investing are joined at the hip. Growth is always a component of value." There is no such thing as a good investment where growth does not matter, and there is no such thing as a good growth investment that ignores value. What you are really looking for is a business that will grow its intrinsic value over time, bought at a price that offers a margin of safety.

Charlie Munger evolved Buffett's thinking from pure Graham-style value investing to what he calls "quality at a fair price." The insight was that a wonderful business that compounds intrinsic value at 15% per year is worth far more than a mediocre business bought at a 50% discount that only grows at 3% per year. Over ten years, the compounder wins by a massive margin even if you paid more up front.

Philip Fisher, the father of growth investing, was not opposed to value principles at all. He insisted on buying growth companies at reasonable prices, not at any price. His scuttlebutt method of researching businesses was entirely compatible with Graham's margin of safety concept.

Peter Lynch created his own framework that bridged the divide: he categorized stocks as slow growers, stalwarts, fast growers, cyclicals, turnarounds, and asset plays. Each category has its own valuation framework. The key insight was that a "fast grower" at 40 times earnings is not automatically better than a "stalwart" at 12 times earnings. You must always evaluate price relative to growth.

Joel Greenblatt's research demonstrates that the best returns come from companies that combine both qualities: high returns on capital (a growth characteristic) at low prices relative to earnings (a value characteristic). His "magic formula" systematically screens for exactly this combination.

Here is how to resolve the growth vs. value debate for your own portfolio:

Your Action Plan

1. Stop thinking in categories and start thinking in probabilities. The question is never "is this a growth stock or a value stock?" It is "what is this business worth, and am I paying less than that?"
2. Use the PEG ratio as a quick screen: divide the P/E ratio by the expected earnings growth rate. A PEG below 1.0 suggests you are getting growth at a reasonable price. Above 2.0 suggests you are overpaying.
3. Focus on return on invested capital as your primary quality metric. Companies that earn high returns on capital are compounders -- they grow intrinsic value year after year regardless of whether Wall Street labels them "growth" or "value."
4. Insist on a margin of safety for every investment. Even the best growth company becomes a bad investment at the wrong price.
5. Look for growth at a reasonable price -- this is the sweet spot that has historically generated the best long-term returns.

The Bottom Line

The best investors do not choose between growth and value. They choose businesses that offer both.

Citation Traceability

  • Canonical URL: https://keeprule.com/en/scenarios/growth-stocks-vs-value-stocks-which-is-better
  • Language Served: en (requested: en)
  • Last Updated: 2026-02-12
🤖

Want Deeper Analysis?

Copy this scenario as an AI prompt. Paste it into ChatGPT, Claude, or Gemini for personalized analysis

Explore More Scenarios

Browse all 30 investing dilemmas and discover what legendary investors would do in each situation.

View All Scenarios