Differentiate S&P Global vs Moody’s

Company Context

You are a strategy manager at a large asset-management firm evaluating two critical market infrastructure providers: S&P Global and Moody’s. Both companies are best known for credit ratings, but each has expanded into data, analytics, indices, risk solutions, and workflow products used by investors, banks, insurers, and corporates. Your CIO wants a concise strategic view of how the two companies differ, where each is stronger, and which business model appears better positioned for long-term growth.

Strategic Situation

The firm currently spends more than $40M annually across market data, ratings-related research, benchmarks, and risk tools. Procurement is considering a broader strategic partnership with one of these providers, but the executive team does not want to treat them as interchangeable. The decision matters now because index licensing costs are rising, private markets data demand is accelerating, and the firm expects to increase spending on fixed income analytics and workflow automation over the next 24 months.

Your task is not to recommend a stock investment. Instead, assess how to differentiate the two companies strategically: what they actually sell, where their moats come from, how their revenue mixes affect resilience, and what that means for customer value and future growth.

Data Points

Additional context:

• Global credit ratings market is roughly $15B, growing 5-7% annually, but highly cyclical with debt issuance.
• Global financial data, analytics, benchmarks, and workflow markets together exceed $60B, growing 8-12% annually.
• Passive AUM linked to S&P Dow Jones indices exceeds $10T, creating recurring licensing economics.
• Moody’s has increased exposure to recurring subscription revenue through Analytics, but Ratings remains the largest profit pool.

Deliverables

1. Differentiate the two companies by business mix, customer value proposition, and strategic positioning.
2. Assess competitive advantages and identify the strongest moat for each company.
3. Compare growth durability by evaluating exposure to cyclical vs recurring revenue streams.
4. Recommend which partner is strategically more valuable for an asset manager focused on public markets today, and explain when the other provider would be preferable.
5. Outline 2-3 strategic moves each company should prioritize over the next three years.

Constraints

• Assume this is a 24-month procurement and partnership decision, not an M&A or investing decision.
• You may only use the data above plus reasonable business assumptions.
• The executive team wants a recommendation that is commercially practical, not purely theoretical.
• Budget flexibility is limited to 10% annual spend growth, so prioritization matters.