Growth Investing vs. Value Investing: Why One of the Best Investors We Know Rejects Both Labels
Written By: Ryan Morrison.
Based on a Navigating Wealth conversation with David Gardner.
2026 High-Net-Worth Asset Allocation Report
See how investors with an average net worth of $17M are allocating across public equities, private markets, real estate, and cash — drawn from 230+ HNW respondents.
Growth investing versus value investing is one of the most persistent debates in long-term portfolio construction. It shapes how investors screen stocks, how advisors build models, and how most financial media frames the question of what to own. David Gardner has spent 30 years largely ignoring it. He co-founded The Motley Fool, produced seven confirmed 100-plus baggers for members over three decades, and built a named investing philosophy without ever sorting his holdings into growth or value buckets. His argument is not that the distinction is wrong. It is that it is the wrong question entirely.
Growth investing targets companies expected to expand earnings faster than the market, typically at high valuation multiples. Value investing targets companies trading below their intrinsic worth. David Gardner, who has produced seven confirmed 100-plus baggers for Motley Fool members over three decades, argues the distinction is largely a distraction. What he looks for instead is excellence: specifically, companies that are top dogs and first movers in important emerging industries, with qualitative advantages the market has not yet priced in. The best companies, on his framework, always look overvalued. That perception is the buy signal, not the warning.
Key Takeaways
Growth investing and value investing represent genuinely different philosophies with different risk profiles, and neither has permanently dominated the other over long time periods
David Gardner rejects both labels and looks instead for "excellence" — top dogs and first movers in important emerging industries with qualitative advantages the market has not priced in
The best companies on David's framework always look overvalued; that widespread perception is his buy signal, not a reason to pass
Four qualitative factors drive long-term outperformance but rarely appear in earnings calls or valuation models: leadership, brand strength, innovative capability, and corporate culture
David's seven confirmed 100-plus baggers for Motley Fool members were each perceived as overvalued at the time of the pick
The growth vs. value debate is a useful starting frame but ultimately a distraction from the real question: does this company show genuine excellence the market has not yet recognized?
Table of Contents
What Growth Investing and Value Investing Mean in Practice
Growth investing and value investing represent two distinct orientations toward the market, each with a different theory of where returns come from. Understanding both clearly is the necessary starting point before examining why an investor with David Gardner's track record has spent 30 years rejecting the distinction.
Growth investors look for companies expected to expand revenues and earnings faster than the broader market. They are typically willing to pay high price-to-earnings and price-to-sales multiples on the thesis that future earnings justify the current price. The bet is on the future: that the company's competitive position will allow it to grow into and beyond its current valuation. Growth investors accept high volatility as the cost of accessing that upside. NVIDIA, Tesla, and Amazon in its early decades are the canonical examples.
Value investors look for companies trading below their intrinsic worth. The discipline traces back to Benjamin Graham's framework and the concept of a margin of safety: buy a dollar of value for fifty cents, and let mean reversion do the work. Value investors tend to focus on low price-to-earnings ratios, low price-to-book ratios, and steady cash flows. The bet is on mispricings correcting over time. Warren Buffett, at least in his early career, is the most famous practitioner.
The historical record shows neither strategy has permanently dominated the other. Since 2015, the Russell 1000 Growth Index has climbed more than 400%, compared to nearly 200% for the Russell 1000 Value Index, with growth leading in 11 of the past 14 years. But in the decade from 2000 to 2010, including the dot-com collapse and the Great Recession, value was the stronger performer. Over the past 20 years, value stocks have outperformed growth in 46% of months, nearly even on a long-run basis. The cycle rotates, and the magnitude of the swings can be large enough to reshape a portfolio's outcome depending on when an investor started.
Warren Buffett himself has complicated the binary. He contends that growth and value investing are complementary rather than contradictory, arguing that growth is an essential element of a stock's intrinsic value. Categorizing a stock as purely growth or purely value, on his view, is superficial. That framing is important context for understanding what David Gardner is doing when he goes further and rejects the categories entirely.
Watch the Full Conversation
This article draws on a Navigating Wealth conversation with David Gardner, where we discuss his Rule Breaker investing philosophy, why the growth vs. value debate misses the real question, the four qualitative factors markets are systematically ignoring, and what he is buying today. Watch the full episode for the broader discussion.
Subscribe on YouTube · Get weekly episode updates
David Gardner is co-founder of The Motley Fool, creator of the Rule Breaker investing philosophy, and author of Rule Breaker Investing — his self-described final stock market book after 30 years of investing in front of a public audience. He has produced seven confirmed 100-plus baggers for Motley Fool members, including Intuitive Surgical (picked at 71 times earnings in 2005, more than 100 times in value since), Palantir, Amazon, and Mercado Libre. His website is rulebreakerinvesting.com. In this conversation, he explains why the labels investors use to categorize stocks are getting in the way of finding the ones that win.
Why David Gardner Rejects the Growth vs. Value Binary
David Gardner does not use the terms growth stock or value stock. He finds them genuinely unhelpful as analytical categories, not as a rhetorical position. What he looks for instead is what he calls excellence, and he has a specific, testable definition of it.
His Rule Breaker framework has six traits. He is looking for companies that are the top dog and first mover in an important emerging industry, with a sustainable competitive advantage, stellar past price appreciation, good management, and smart backing. The sixth trait is the one that separates his framework most sharply from conventional investing: the company should be broadly perceived to be overvalued by the market at large. That perception is not a warning. It is the buy signal.
The logic is not contrarian for its own sake. Gardner's argument is that the qualitative factors driving long-term outperformance (which he covers in detail in the next section) are systematically excluded from the valuation methodologies most investors use. Because those factors are not being priced in, the companies that possess them will persistently appear overvalued relative to the metrics being used to measure them. Starbucks always looked overvalued. So did Amazon. So did Intuitive Surgical when Gardner picked it in 2005 at 71 times earnings. It has since returned more than 100 times that initial investment.
Tad Fallows raised the natural challenge in the conversation: Dimensional Fund Advisors has 100 years of data showing that value, defined as low entry price-to-earnings, beats growth by roughly 4% per year on average. How does Gardner square his actual track record against that academic case? His response was direct. He does not feel compelled to work within the growth-or-value framework to answer the question. He is not picking growth stocks. He is not picking value stocks. He is picking what he considers to be excellent companies and holding them. The seven 100-plus baggers speak for themselves, and whether a passive index approach holds up against that kind of active selection record is a question worth examining on its own terms.
Warren Buffett's line, which Gardner cites on page 16 of his book, captures the macro side of this position precisely: "Forming macro opinions or listening to the macro or market predictions of others is a waste of time." Gardner is not making a bet on the growth cycle or the value cycle. He is asking what is a great company, finding one, and holding it.
Growth vs. Value vs. Excellence: A Direct Comparison
The table below maps the three frameworks across eight dimensions. The first two columns represent the conventional debate. The third column represents David Gardner's reframe (not as a third investing style, but as a different question about what investing is for).
| Dimension | Growth Investing | Value Investing | David Gardner's Excellence Frame |
|---|---|---|---|
| Core philosophy | Find companies growing earnings faster than the market | Find companies trading below intrinsic worth | Find companies with qualitative advantages the market has not yet priced in |
| Valuation approach | Accepts high PE/PS multiples as justified by future growth | Seeks low PE, low price-to-book, margin of safety | Treats widespread "overvalued" perception as a buy signal |
| Time horizon | Long-term; multiple expansion drives returns | Medium to long-term; mean reversion to fair value | Indefinite; hold as long as excellence persists |
| What you are buying | Future earnings potential | Present underpricing | Leadership, brand, innovation, culture |
| Risk profile | High volatility; vulnerable to multiple compression in downturns | Lower volatility; discount provides downside buffer | High volatility; requires conviction to hold through significant drawdowns |
| Famous practitioners | ARK Invest, early-stage venture | Warren Buffett (early career), Benjamin Graham | David Gardner, Motley Fool Rule Breakers |
| Example companies | NVIDIA, Tesla, early Amazon | Berkshire holdings, financials, industrials | Intuitive Surgical, Palantir, Mercado Libre, Rocket Lab |
| Key risk | Paying too much for growth that does not materialize | Value trap — the company is cheap for a reason | Missing the sell signal when excellence genuinely deteriorates |
The most important row in this table is the last one. Gardner is explicit that not every company is bulletproof. Starbucks is more challenged today than it was 10 or 20 years ago. Eastman Kodak is the cautionary example: a company that was once an extraordinary innovator but failed to adapt when plate tectonics shifted. Everything has a life cycle. The skill in Gardner's framework is not just identifying excellence early. It is recognizing when the qualitative factors that justified the holding are no longer present. That judgment is harder than a valuation screen, which is partly why the approach is not easily replicated from a spreadsheet. How the current dollar depreciation environment is changing the public equity allocation calculus is a separate but connected question for investors building portfolios around any of these three frameworks.
Beyond Wealth Newsletter
Weekly perspectives on money, meaning, and the decisions that come after the financial ones get easier. Read by founders, executives, and investors navigating the same questions covered in this post.
The Four Qualitative Factors Markets Are Missing
The reason the best companies always look overvalued, on Gardner's analysis, is that the factors driving their long-term outperformance are not being captured in the metrics investors use to value them. He names four: leadership and management quality, brand strength, innovative capability, and corporate culture. None of them show up in the standard valuation frameworks. Almost none of them come up on quarterly earnings calls.
Leadership
Leadership and management quality matter more than any individual quarter's results, and most investors know this intuitively but struggle to systematize it. Gardner's argument is not that good management guarantees outcomes, but that bad management guarantees the opposite, and that the market is systematically underweighting this variable in its valuation multiples. Asking who is running the company (and whether that answer changes when the founding CEO steps back) is the right question. It is not the question driving most equity research.
Brand
Brand strength compounds in ways that financial statements capture only partially. Starbucks, at virtually any moment in its history, looked expensive by conventional metrics. The brand moat and its implications for pricing power, customer loyalty, and geographic expansion were always there but rarely the explicit driver of the valuation. Gardner notes that when a company is described as overvalued for selling something as ordinary as coffee, that perception gap is often the signal.
Innovation
Innovative capability is the variable that makes the Eastman Kodak comparison worth sitting with. Amazon is, in Gardner's phrase, an unbelievable capital-I innovator across multiple generations and multiple categories. It has earned its sustained premium because it keeps generating new surface area of innovation. Most companies do not. The question worth asking is not whether a company is innovative today but whether its organizational structure and culture are capable of sustaining innovation after the founding moment. That is a qualitative judgment and how institutional allocators think about sustainable competitive advantage over multi-decade time horizons is the relevant frame.
Culture
Corporate culture is the fourth factor and, Gardner argues, the most underappreciated. Loyal corporate cultures have lower turnover and therefore deeper institutional memory. More employees who understand what the company is tend to make better decisions at the margins, in ways that aggregate into outperformance over time. The companies that tend to outperform, on his observation, are frequently the ones that are the best places to work. Chick-fil-A, which he describes as a leadership academy masquerading as a chicken restaurant, remains private, a loss to public market investors who would have benefited from owning it across its entire arc.
Gardner makes a specific observation about Long Angle members that is worth noting: founders, operators, and executives already understand these four factors intuitively because they have built and run real businesses. They have watched what happens when a great CEO is replaced by a mediocre one, or when a brand is managed into irrelevance, or when a culture shifts from something special into something ordinary. The reason these factors are not factored into valuation multiples, he argues, is not that they are unknowable. It is that they are not quantifiable in ways that fit the existing models. How HNW investors are currently allocating across public equities and alternative asset classes provides useful context for thinking about where these qualitative-driven equity selections fit in a broader portfolio.
Can You Beat the Stock Market and What the Track Record Shows
David Gardner has a 30-year disagreement with the efficient market hypothesis, and he does not hold it lightly. The core claim of the EMH is what he calls the great canard of our time: that it would just be luck to beat the market averages. Nobody says that about any other discipline. Nobody argues that a doctor is just lucky to be better than average, or that an NBA player's superior performance is a statistical artifact. But thanks to decades of academic reinforcement, a significant share of investors have come to believe that active stock selection is essentially random.
Gardner's counterargument is his track record. Seven confirmed 100-plus baggers picked for Motley Fool members in front of a public audience, with real money invested alongside. Each one was perceived as overvalued at the time of the pick. Intuitive Surgical was trading at 71 times earnings when he recommended it in 2005. He looked at what he calls his snap test and his cola test (simple, consumer-facing heuristics for evaluating whether a company's product or service is a clear win against alternatives) and concluded he did not see anyone else at scale doing minimally invasive robot-assisted surgery. Today Intuitive Surgical has a larger research and development budget than its nearest competitor's entire top-line revenue.
The implication Gardner draws is not that every investor can replicate this. He acknowledges that his approach requires a specific temperament: the ability to hold through significant drawdowns without flinching. NVIDIA at a $5 trillion market cap declining to $2.5 trillion and then recovering to $20 trillion over the following years is a test most investors fail not because they lack information but because they cannot tolerate the intermediate experience. Private credit as a complement to concentrated public equity positions is one way HNW investors manage the volatility that comes with conviction-driven equity portfolios.
His current approach is dollar-cost averaging with meaningful clumped purchases a few times per year. Recent additions include Palantir (purchased March 2024, a 9-bagger in roughly two years), Rocket Lab (the commercialization of outer space as a TAM argument), and Intuitive Surgical as an ongoing conviction holding. When asked for a single stock on the PBS Wealth Track with Consuelo Mack, he named Intuitive Surgical, because it checks every box on his framework and he sees it continuing to compound at scale for the next 10 to 30 years.
The practical implication for investors evaluating the growth vs. value debate is this: the debate is about categories, and categories are proxies. Gardner's argument is that the proxies are imprecise enough that they are actively misleading. The investor who focuses on whether a stock looks like growth or value is asking a weaker question than the investor who asks whether the company shows genuine excellence and whether the market has recognized it yet.
Where do peers who think about public equity the way David Gardner does — looking for excellence over labels, holding through volatility, ignoring the macro noise — compare notes on portfolio construction and private market opportunities?
Long Angle is a vetted community where members share what they own, what they passed on, and what they are watching, without solicitation from other members or vendors.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the difference between growth and value investing?
Growth investing targets companies expected to expand earnings faster than the market, typically at high valuation multiples. Value investing targets companies trading below their intrinsic worth, seeking a margin of safety from the discount. The two strategies have different risk profiles, different time horizons, and different theories of where returns come from. Neither has permanently dominated the other over long periods. Style leadership rotates, sometimes for extended periods.
Has growth or value investing performed better long term?
The honest answer is that it depends on the time period. Since 2015, the Russell 1000 Growth Index has climbed more than 400% compared to nearly 200% for value. But from 2000 to 2010, value was the stronger performer. Over the past 20 years, value has outperformed growth in roughly 46% of months, nearly even on a long-run basis. The magnitude of the swings between periods can be large enough to reshape a portfolio's outcome depending on when an investor started.
What is Rule Breaker investing?
Rule Breaker investing is David Gardner's framework for identifying companies that are top dogs and first movers in important emerging industries, with a sustainable competitive advantage, stellar past price appreciation, good management, smart backing, and (crucially) a widespread perception of being overvalued. That last trait is his buy signal, not a warning. The framework has produced seven confirmed 100-plus baggers for Motley Fool members over three decades.
What are multibagger stocks and how do you find them?
A multibagger is a stock that has returned a multiple of its original price. A 10-bagger returns 10 times, a 100-bagger returns 100 times. Gardner's approach to finding them involves looking for excellence rather than value or growth labels: top dogs in important emerging industries with qualitative advantages the market has not priced in. Every one of his 100-plus baggers was perceived as overvalued at the time of the pick. The challenge is not identifying them in hindsight but holding through the volatility that comes with that perceived overvaluation.
Can individual investors beat the stock market?
David Gardner argues emphatically yes, and has built a 30-year public track record making that case. His position is that the efficient market hypothesis, which holds that beating market averages would essentially be luck, is the great canard of our time. It is an idea that would never be applied to any other skilled discipline. His seven confirmed 100-plus baggers, each picked in front of a public audience with real money invested alongside, represent his argument in evidence rather than theory.
What qualitative factors matter most when picking stocks?
Gardner names four that he believes are being systematically missed by standard valuation methodologies: leadership and management quality, brand strength, innovative capability, and corporate culture. None appear reliably in earnings calls or valuation multiples. Loyal cultures have lower turnover and deeper institutional memory. Strong brands compound pricing power in ways financial statements only partially capture. Innovative capability determines whether a company is Amazon or Eastman Kodak over a 20-year horizon.
What is the snap test for evaluating stocks?
The snap test is one of David Gardner's simple consumer-facing heuristics for evaluating a company's competitive position. The idea is to ask whether the company's product or service is a clear win against alternatives in a snap judgment: the kind of immediate recognition a consumer makes when comparing options. A company that passes the snap test has a product advantage that is accessible and demonstrable rather than theoretical. He used it, alongside the cola test, when evaluating Intuitive Surgical in 2005: he simply could not identify anyone else at scale doing minimally invasive robot-assisted surgery.
Final Thoughts
The growth vs. value debate is not wrong. It captures something real about different investor orientations and different theories of where returns come from. What it misses, on David Gardner's reading, is the more important question: does this company show genuine excellence that the market has not yet recognized?
The investor who starts with the growth-or-value question is already operating at a level of abstraction that strips out the information most useful for finding the companies that become 100-baggers. Leadership, brand, innovation, and culture are not easy to quantify. They do not fit neatly into a valuation model. They rarely come up on earnings calls. And they are, Gardner argues after 30 years of investing in public view, the primary drivers of long-term outperformance.
The practical implication is not that every investor should adopt Gardner's framework. His approach requires a temperament for high volatility and a willingness to hold positions that look expensive by conventional metrics for years or decades. What it does suggest is that the growth vs. value sorting exercise is a weaker proxy than the question it is trying to answer. The investors who have produced the most durable long-term outperformance have generally been the ones who cared less about the label and more about the underlying business. That is less a technique than a reorientation, and it is probably the more important takeaway from 30 years of Rule Breaker investing.
The qualitative factors David names as the real drivers of long-term outperformance — leadership, brand strength, innovative capability, corporate culture — are the same factors that never come up on quarterly earnings calls.
Long Angle is a vetted community where 8,000+ high-net-worth founders, executives, and investors bring exactly these questions to peers who have built and operated real businesses. They recognize what David is describing because they have lived it. The community is vendor-free and the conversations are candid.
Resources Mentioned
Rule Breaker Investing by David Gardner — rulebreakerinvesting.com
The Motley Fool — fool.com
Twitter/X: @DavidGFool
Watch or Listen
Watch on YouTube · Listen on Spotify · Apple Podcasts · Amazon Music
