Baillie Gifford China Growth Trust (BGCG) Competitors

Baillie Gifford China Growth Trust (LON:BGCG) and Schroder Oriental Income (LON:SOI) are both small-cap asset management industry companies, but which is the superior investment? We will compare the two businesses based on the strength of their institutional ownership, analyst recommendations, profitability, valuation, risk, earnings, media sentiment and dividends.

Which has higher earnings and valuation, BGCG or SOI?

Schroder Oriental Income has higher revenue and earnings than Baillie Gifford China Growth Trust. Baillie Gifford China Growth Trust is trading at a lower price-to-earnings ratio than Schroder Oriental Income, indicating that it is currently the more affordable of the two stocks.

Company	Gross Revenue	Price/Sales Ratio	Net Income	Earnings Per Share	Price/Earnings Ratio
Baillie Gifford China Growth Trust	£51.01M	3.62	-£31.39M	£0.84	377.69
Schroder Oriental Income	£82.53M	9.03	£106.18M	£0.33	997.55

Which has more risk & volatility, BGCG or SOI?

Baillie Gifford China Growth Trust has a beta of 0.55, suggesting that its share price is 45% less volatile than the S&P 500. Comparatively, Schroder Oriental Income has a beta of 0.67, suggesting that its share price is 33% less volatile than the S&P 500.

Do analysts recommend BGCG or SOI?

Schroder Oriental Income has a consensus price target of GBX 300, indicating a potential downside of 7.83%. Given Schroder Oriental Income's stronger consensus rating and higher possible upside, analysts clearly believe Schroder Oriental Income is more favorable than Baillie Gifford China Growth Trust.

Company	Sell Ratings	Hold Ratings	Buy Ratings	Strong Buy Ratings	Rating Score
Baillie Gifford China Growth Trust	0 Sell rating(s)	0 Hold rating(s)	0 Buy rating(s)	0 Strong Buy rating(s)	0.00
Schroder Oriental Income	0 Sell rating(s)	0 Hold rating(s)	1 Buy rating(s)	0 Strong Buy rating(s)	3.00

Is BGCG or SOI more profitable?

Baillie Gifford China Growth Trust has a net margin of 107.60% compared to Schroder Oriental Income's net margin of 88.88%. Schroder Oriental Income's return on equity of 16.22% beat Baillie Gifford China Growth Trust's return on equity.

Company	Net Margins	Return on Equity	Return on Assets
Baillie Gifford China Growth Trust	107.60%	-26.72%	-30.69%
Schroder Oriental Income	88.88%	16.22%	-2.12%

Is BGCG or SOI a better dividend stock?

Baillie Gifford China Growth Trust pays an annual dividend of GBX 0.02 per share and has a dividend yield of 0.0%. Schroder Oriental Income pays an annual dividend of GBX 0.12 per share and has a dividend yield of 0.0%. Baillie Gifford China Growth Trust pays out 2.6% of its earnings in the form of a dividend. Schroder Oriental Income pays out 36.8% of its earnings in the form of a dividend. Both companies have healthy payout ratios and should be able to cover their dividend payments with earnings for the next several years.

Does the media prefer BGCG or SOI?

In the previous week, Schroder Oriental Income had 1 more articles in the media than Baillie Gifford China Growth Trust. MarketBeat recorded 1 mentions for Schroder Oriental Income and 0 mentions for Baillie Gifford China Growth Trust. Baillie Gifford China Growth Trust's average media sentiment score of 0.00 equaled Schroder Oriental Income'saverage media sentiment score.

Company	Overall Sentiment
Baillie Gifford China Growth Trust	Neutral
Schroder Oriental Income	Neutral

Do institutionals & insiders have more ownership in BGCG or SOI?

5.5% of Baillie Gifford China Growth Trust shares are held by institutional investors. Comparatively, 9.7% of Schroder Oriental Income shares are held by institutional investors. 0.8% of Baillie Gifford China Growth Trust shares are held by insiders. Comparatively, 0.1% of Schroder Oriental Income shares are held by insiders. Strong institutional ownership is an indication that hedge funds, endowments and large money managers believe a company will outperform the market over the long term.

Summary

Schroder Oriental Income beats Baillie Gifford China Growth Trust on 13 of the 17 factors compared between the two stocks.