MUFG vs. NU: Mitsubishi UFJ Financial vs. Nu Holdings Stock Comparison

Company Profile

Mitsubishi UFJ Financial (MUFG) and Nu Holdings (NU) are both classified in the Diversified Banks sub-industry within the broader Banks industry, placing them in the closest GICS peer bucket.

Mitsubishi UFJ Financial (MUFG) has more than two decades of public-market history since April 2, 2001, whereas Nu Holdings (NU) listed on December 9, 2021 and has a much shorter record to draw on.

Nu Holdings (NU) trades as ordinary local shares, while Mitsubishi UFJ Financial (MUFG) trades as an ADR — compare with FX exposure, depositary-program fees, and dividend-withholding-tax differences in mind.

Price Performance

Cumulative Growth

Trailing Returns

Calendar-Year Returns

Performance Metrics

Risk Profile

Drawdown History

Return Distribution

Risk Metrics

Risk-Adjusted Performance

Risk-Return Positioning

Risk-Adjusted Metrics

Profitability

Nu Holdings (NU) at 31.63% delivers above-range ROE, while Mitsubishi UFJ Financial (MUFG) at 9.46% falls into the bottom quartile — a wide split in profit generated from equity.

Nu Holdings (NU) at 42.73% retains a top-quartile share of revenue as profit, ahead of Mitsubishi UFJ Financial (MUFG) at 27.45%, which keeps about the industry-typical share.

Neither side reports a meaningful operating margin: for Mitsubishi UFJ Financial (MUFG) in Banks and Nu Holdings (NU) in Banks, funding costs are part of the core business, so net margin and ROE are the cleaner profitability reads.

Profitability Metrics

Growth

Nu Holdings (NU) at 28.51% sits in the top revenue growth quartile, while Mitsubishi UFJ Financial (MUFG) at 9.98% is closer to the peer norm — faster top-line expansion for NU.

Both Mitsubishi UFJ Financial (MUFG) at 33.15% and Nu Holdings (NU) at 44.92% sit in the top peer quartile for EPS growth, so each is compounding per-share earnings faster than typical industry peers.

Growth Metrics

Financial Strength

current ratio doesn’t apply on either side: Mitsubishi UFJ Financial (MUFG) in Banks and Nu Holdings (NU) in Banks both report balance sheets without a current/non-current split, so their short-term liquidity is better judged through regulatory and funding measures.

debt-to-equity ratio is set aside for both: Mitsubishi UFJ Financial (MUFG) in Banks and Nu Holdings (NU) in Banks run businesses where balance-sheet leverage is part of the model, so capital-adequacy and funding measures are the better gauges of balance-sheet risk.

Financial Strength Metrics

Dividends

Nu Holdings (NU) pays no dividend (yield 0.00%) — it may be reinvesting, using buybacks, or simply not returning cash through dividends. Meanwhile Mitsubishi UFJ Financial (MUFG) reports a yield of 406.81%, ranking against industry peers normally.

Nu Holdings (NU) pays no dividend (payout 0.00%) — it may be reinvesting, using buybacks, or simply not returning cash through dividends. Meanwhile Mitsubishi UFJ Financial (MUFG) reports a payout of 34.74%, ranking against industry peers normally.

Dividend Metrics

Valuation

Mitsubishi UFJ Financial (MUFG) at 13.71 is near its industry’s usual P/E ratio, while Nu Holdings (NU) at 16.48 sits in the richer quartile — NU needs stronger growth or earnings quality to justify the premium.

P/S ratio is set aside for both Mitsubishi UFJ Financial (MUFG) in Banks and Nu Holdings (NU) in Banks: without a conventional revenue line, pricing per dollar of sales isn’t meaningful, and book- or earnings-based multiples make the better comparison.

Both look rich against book: Mitsubishi UFJ Financial (MUFG) at 1.64 sits in the upper P/B ratio quartile, and Nu Holdings (NU) at 4.39 prices even higher, above its industry range.

Valuation Metrics