JPMorgan vs Goldman Sachs: Which Wall Street Giant Scores Better on Ethics?
JPMorgan Chase accumulated $892 million in ethics-related fines and settlements in three years, according to regulatory records. Goldman Sachs invested $8.7 billion in cluster munition producers between 2015 and 2018. Goldman settled a $215 million class-action lawsuit over systemic gender pay discrimination. JPMorgan cancelled a meeting with Indigenous leaders from Peru's Amazon who sought to discuss investments linked to oil spills.
Two banks. Two different kinds of documented risk. If you hold a financial-sector ETF or a broad market index fund, you almost certainly own both. The question is not which bank is ethical -- neither is. The question is where they differ, and which risks matter to you.
We scored both companies across 11 independent ethical dimensions using Mashinii's methodology -- regulatory records, court filings, and investigative reports. No corporate self-assessments. No ESG questionnaires. For a comparison of two other major banks, see our HSBC vs Barclays ethics comparison.
JPMorgan vs Goldman Sachs: Which Bank Is More Ethical?
| Dimension | JPMorgan (JPM) | Goldman Sachs (GS) | Advantage |
|---|---|---|---|
| Better Health for All | +10 | 0 | JPMorgan |
| Fair Money & Economic Opportunity | 0 | -40 | JPMorgan |
| Fair Pay & Worker Respect | 0 | -60 | JPMorgan |
| Fair Trade & Ethical Sourcing | 0 | 0 | Tied |
| Honest & Fair Business | -40 | -50 | JPMorgan |
| Kind to Animals | -20 | -40 | JPMorgan |
| No War, No Weapons | 0 | -80 | JPMorgan |
| Planet-Friendly Business | -20 | 0 | Goldman Sachs |
| Respect for Cultures & Communities | -60 | 0 | Goldman Sachs |
| Safe & Smart Tech | -30 | 0 | Goldman Sachs |
| Zero Waste & Sustainable Products | -30 | -20 | Goldman Sachs |
| Average Score | -17.3 | -26.4 | JPMorgan |
JPMorgan leads in 6 dimensions. Goldman Sachs leads in 4. They tie on 1. Both sit well below zero, but Goldman Sachs carries the heavier overall burden at -26.4 versus JPMorgan's -17.3.
The Biggest Divergence: Goldman's $8.7 Billion in Weapons Financing
No War, No Weapons: JPMorgan 0, Goldman Sachs -80
This is the widest gap in the entire comparison -- an 80-point spread.
Goldman Sachs' -80 on No War, No Weapons is among the lowest scores on this dimension for any non-defence company in our database. The evidence, documented in public filings and investigative reports, includes specific figures: between 2015 and 2018, Goldman invested $8.7 billion in cluster munition producers and $8.6 billion in nuclear weapon producers. The GQG Partners International Opportunities Fund holds $2.7 billion in military contractors, representing 5.4% of the fund's portfolio. Goldman also maintains a $141.5 million position in TransDigm Group, a supplier to military procurement agencies.
JPMorgan scored 0. While regulatory filings reference JPMorgan's investments in defence-related sectors and AI firms, the independent evidence does not provide the specific metrics required by our scoring rubric to confirm direct weapons financing. A score of 0 does not indicate a clean record -- it indicates the available evidence is insufficient to score.
For investors who screen against weapons exposure, this dimension alone may be decisive.
Explore what No War, No Weapons measures ->
Goldman Sachs: Gender Pay Gap and the $215 Million Settlement (Fair Pay: JPMorgan 0, Goldman -60)
Goldman Sachs' -60 on Fair Pay & Worker Respect is driven by documented legal findings. In 2023, Goldman settled a class-action lawsuit for $215 million over allegations of systemic pay and promotion discrimination affecting approximately 2,800 current and former female employees, according to court filings. The firm reported a mean hourly gender pay gap of 54% at Goldman Sachs International in the UK -- meaning women earn 46% of men's mean hourly pay.
JPMorgan scored 0 on this dimension. The company reported a CEO-to-median employee pay ratio of 348:1, with CEO compensation totalling $37.7 million for fiscal year 2024. But it also reported that women are paid 99% of what men earn when adjusted for role, tenure, seniority, and geography based on 2023 data. Non-White employees in the U.S. were paid on par with White employees by the same measures. The company conducts periodic pay equity reviews and in 2024 granted a special $1,000 award to eligible employees earning less than $80,000.
The 60-point gap reflects a documented difference: Goldman's gender discrimination was resolved through a $215 million settlement. JPMorgan's pay equity data, while imperfect, shows narrower gaps on the metrics we measure.
JPMorgan's $892 Million Fine Record (Honest & Fair Business: JPMorgan -40, Goldman -50)
Neither bank passes the governance test. The nature and scale of their documented failures differ.
JPMorgan's largest recent penalty -- a $348.2 million fine for trade surveillance deficiencies -- is the kind of infrastructure failure that speaks directly to banking: the company failed to properly monitor its own trades. A $151 million settlement for misleading disclosures and a $100 million penalty for trade reporting violations follow the same pattern. These are not peripheral issues. They are failures in the core business of a bank. A $290 million settlement and a $1.79 million fine from Singapore round out the $892 million total over three years.
Goldman's recent penalty total is lower at $76.8 million, including $45 million for mishandling credit card transaction disputes, $19.8 million in consumer redress, and over $12 million for settling a workplace culture complaint. But Goldman also carries the 1MDB fraud -- a matter that resulted in over $2.9 billion in penalties to the U.S. government and $3.9 billion to Malaysia, as documented in court proceedings. A former Goldman executive was sentenced to 10 years in prison.
JPMorgan's fines are larger in recent dollar terms. Goldman's governance record includes a fraud that ranks among the largest in banking history.
Fair Money & Economic Opportunity: JPMorgan 0, Goldman Sachs -40
Goldman scored -40 on Fair Money & Economic Opportunity. The primary driver: a $5.06 billion settlement in 2016 related to allegations of misleading investors about mortgage quality in residential mortgage-backed securities, according to court filings. This was a central event of the 2008 financial crisis and one of the largest settlements in U.S. banking history. For an overview of companies with the most court-documented ethical controversies, see our most ethical controversies in court analysis.
JPMorgan scored 0. Regulatory filings reference significant commitments to affordable housing, small business lending in minority communities, and financial literacy initiatives, but the available evidence does not provide the precise quantitative data our rubric requires to score positively.
Where JPMorgan Scores Lowest
Respect for Cultures & Communities: JPMorgan -60, Goldman Sachs 0
JPMorgan's lowest score is a -60 on Respect for Cultures & Communities. The evidence is specific and documented.
A 2024 BankTrack report criticised JPMorgan for failing to implement safeguards in line with U.N. human rights principles for Indigenous rights, with a notable absence of consideration for free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC). The bank stated it would not cease financing clients operating without Indigenous consent. In April 2024, JPMorgan cancelled a meeting with Indigenous leaders from Peru's Amazon region who sought to discuss investments linked to oil spills and Indigenous rights violations. A shareholder proposal requesting a report on the effectiveness of Indigenous rights policies received 30.4% investor support -- and the board recommended against it.
Goldman scored 0 on this dimension. It has an Indigenous rights policy referencing IFC Performance Standard 7 and was criticised for inconsistent application around the Dakota Access Pipeline. But the documented record of dismissed engagement that appears in JPMorgan's profile is absent.
Safe & Smart Tech: JPMorgan -30, Goldman Sachs 0
JPMorgan scored -30 on Safe & Smart Tech. The scoring reflects a data breach affecting over 451,000 retirement plan members, where exposed data included Social Security numbers and bank account details, according to regulatory disclosures. The breach began in August 2021 and went undetected until February 2024 -- a critical vulnerability that was unaddressed for over two and a half years.
On the other side, JPMorgan invested $10 million in FairPlay in March 2025 to identify and correct biases in AI-driven lending systems, and holds patents for AI designed to reduce unconscious bias in hiring. Its AML system achieved a 95% reduction in false positives. But the scale and duration of the breach pulled the score negative.
Goldman scored 0, reflecting insufficient evidence for scoring rather than demonstrated strength.
How They Compare to the Sector
For context, here is how JPMorgan and Goldman compare to two other major Wall Street banks:
| Metric | JPMorgan | Goldman Sachs | Morgan Stanley | Bank of America |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Average Score | -17.3 | -26.4 | -21.8 | -20.0 |
| Honest & Fair Business | -40 | -50 | 0 | -40 |
| No War, No Weapons | 0 | -80 | -70 | -70 |
| Fair Pay & Worker Respect | 0 | -60 | -50 | +20 |
| Fair Money & Economic Opportunity | 0 | -40 | +10 | -50 |
JPMorgan has the best average of the four, but no major Wall Street bank achieves a positive overall score. Bank of America is the only one to score positively on worker rights (+20), driven by its $24 minimum wage, over 99% pay equity for women globally and non-White employees in comparable positions, and an 8% employee turnover rate. Morgan Stanley is the only one to score positively on financial inclusion (+10), with "Outstanding" community reinvestment ratings from the OCC. Goldman Sachs carries the heaviest overall burden, driven by weapons exposure, gender discrimination settlements, and the 1MDB fraud.
Morgan Stanley's -50 on Fair Pay reflects a 48% gender pay gap in Australia -- more than double the national average -- and a federal judge conditionally certifying a lawsuit alleging denied overtime pay. Bank of America's -70 on No War, No Weapons reflects $28 billion in investments in cluster munitions manufacturers identified in 2016, with no evidence of subsequent divestment, and a 2024 decision to ease restrictions on financing assault-style gun manufacturers.
Military and Fossil Fuel Financing: Where the Banks Diverge
Both banks face scrutiny for fossil fuel financing, but the data lands differently.
Goldman Sachs provided approximately $184.9 billion in financing to the fossil fuel industry between 2016 and 2023, including $9.33 billion in 2023 for companies involved in fossil fuel expansion. In January 2025, Goldman exited the Net-Zero Banking Alliance. The firm has sourced 100% of its global electricity from renewables since 2020 and has been carbon neutral across its operations since 2015.
JPMorgan's total financed and facilitated emissions were 142.7 million tCO2e as of December 2024. The company sources 100% renewable electricity for its operations and purchased 367,311 tonnes of verified carbon offsets in 2024, covering over 100% of its operational Scope 1 and 2 emissions. Its subsidiary, Campbell Global, manages approximately 1.4 million acres of certified forests. JPMorgan adheres to TCFD recommendations for climate-related disclosures.
Goldman scored 0 on Planet-Friendly Business -- the positive operational commitments balanced against the massive fossil fuel financing. JPMorgan scored -20, reflecting the sheer scale of its financed emissions despite operational clean energy commitments.
The Overall Picture
JPMorgan's average score of -17.3 is materially higher than Goldman's -26.4. In the context of our -100 to +100 scale, a nine-point gap is significant. JPMorgan leads on 6 of 11 dimensions.
But neither bank reaches ethical neutrality. Both carry documented risks that differ depending on what an investor prioritises.
Goldman Sachs' documented risks: Weapons financing (-80), gender discrimination settled for $215 million (-60), 1MDB fraud resulting in $6.8 billion in penalties (-50), mortgage fraud settlement of $5.06 billion (-40), and $300 million invested in intensive poultry farms in China (-40).
JPMorgan's documented risks: Dismissed engagement with Indigenous communities and 0% FPIC participation in relevant instances (-60), $892 million in regulatory fines over three years (-40), a data breach affecting 451,000 retirement plan members that went undetected for 2.5 years (-30), and 105 organisations urging the company to stop financing factory farms (-20).
JPMorgan's documented positives: Morgan Health invested nearly $250 million in healthcare companies and committed $14 million in grants supporting over 6,000 individuals (+10), periodic pay equity reviews with 99% gender pay equity, and $3.7 billion directed to diverse suppliers.
Goldman's documented positives: 100% renewable electricity since 2020, carbon neutral operations since 2015, $555 billion achieved toward a $750 billion sustainable financing target, and 100% of vendors assessed for ESG risks.
If you screen against weapons exposure, Goldman Sachs carries the most documented risk of the four major Wall Street banks. If you screen for Indigenous rights, JPMorgan has the lowest score. If you screen on governance broadly, both carry documented penalty records in the hundreds of millions.
If You Bank With...
JPMorgan Chase retail customers: JPMorgan's -17.3 average is the best of the four major Wall Street banks, but "best" is relative. The bank's most documented risks are in Indigenous rights (-60) and data security (-30, with a breach that went undetected for 2.5 years). Its trade surveillance failures suggest systemic monitoring gaps. If you prioritise knowing where your deposits sit in the ethics landscape, the data exists to assess it.
Goldman Sachs clients: Goldman's -26.4 average is weighted down by weapons financing (-80) and gender discrimination (-60). These are not retail banking issues in the traditional sense, but they reflect the institutional character of the firm that manages your assets. The 1MDB fraud, while resolved, remains the most serious governance failure documented for any Wall Street bank in recent history.
How We Score
Mashinii scores companies across 11 ethical dimensions using publicly verifiable evidence -- regulatory records, court filings, and investigative reports. Every score is cited at the source. No self-assessments. Learn more about our methodology.
Check your own portfolio. If you hold bank stocks, financial-sector ETFs, or broad index funds, search any of the 6,000+ companies in our database. Financial advisors can use Mashinii's integrity data to meet obligations under the FCA's Consumer Duty and Anti-Greenwashing Rule. See how Mashinii supports advisors.
Audit My Portfolio | Search Any Company | View Rankings
Mashinii provides integrity data for informational purposes. This is not financial advice.