Financial Times vs The Wall Street Journal Comparison
Which is better? FT or WSJ?
FT or WSJ: Which is Better?
Generally speaking - our users prefer the Financial Times; however, the Wall Street Journal is preferred for coverage of US companies and industry trends. Our users shared their thoughts below.
User @LeggoMyGekko" well summarized the opinions of commentators:
WSJ:
- Americas focused (both cover markets quite evenly)
- Sometimes misstated facts (later corrected)
- Too long (filler words)
- Watered down (allows average Joe who took micro/macro-econ to understand)
FT:
- Euro focused (both cover markets quite evenly)
- Rarely misstated facts
- Very concise
- Intellectual read - (i.e. connect textbook theories with markets - sometimes at very high levels)
- They assume you're very well educated in finance, accounting, economics, politics, legal, markets - so when you don't understand something, you're influenced to go look it up via google
mergerarb15FT is superior. Concise, intellectual, global, accurate, and relevant. Also, I like the size a lot better, I don't like how thin the WSJ has become. And in addition, the color really stands out in my mind, and when I see that pink I crave some Martin Wolf, what a genius.
GoodBreadDepends on where you live. You're better off reading the WSJ in NYC/America and the FT in London/Europe. While the FT is consistently good, the WSJ can either be great (Buffett writes an op-ed) or awful (columnists who are blinded by their own conservatism, don't understand a thing about the markets).
Decided to Pursue a Wall Street Career? Learn How to Network like a Master.
Inside the WSO Finance networking guide, you'll get a comprehensive, all-inclusive roadmap for maximizing your networking efforts (and minimizing embarrassing blunders). This info-rich book is packed with 71 pages of detailed strategies to help you get the most of your networking, including cold emailing templates, questions to ask in interviews, and action steps for success in navigating the Wall Street networking process.
Depends on where you live. You're better off reading the WSJ in NYC/America and the FT in London/Europe. While the FT is consitently good, the WSJ can either be great (Buffett writes an op-ed) or awful (the retarded columnists who blinded by their own conservatism, don't understand a thing about the markets).
I just attended a talk last night given by the Publisher and the Managing Editor of the International Herald Tribune. They gave some pretty interesting statistics.
While WSJ ad revenue and circulation is down year over year, FT's up in both categories, even in this market climate.
I'm not sure that's a value judgment, but advertisers are not often wrong about where they commit their dollars.
That being said, I'm a big fan of the Urinal and have been most of my life. I like FT, but for my money I prefer WSJ.
^I mostly agree. If you're looking for a US perspective/focus (that still mentions world events), then go for the WSJ. If you're looking for a European focus, then take the FT.
Personally, I subscribe to the print edition of the WSJ, and subscribe to some FT.com RSS feeds
FT is superior. Better writing. More condensed. No bullshit. And they rarely (if ever) misstate facts and tend not to ever deal in conjecture. Martin Wolf is dat ninja. Also, it does not have an overly european tilt despite what you might think. It's a solid paper and defintiely recommend it over the Journal.
Real men wear (and read newspapers colored) pink
FT FTW.
I like the blurbs on the front page of the WSJ more than those on the FT, but I prefer the articles in the FT.
FT wants me to pay to read their website. Therefore WSJ wins.
You're not in college, but there's a chance this works if you're on the facebook - give it a shot
http://apps.facebook.com/ft_student_offer/
For my money, FT every time. Much more consistent in article quality
Majority has it right...
WSJ: Americas focused (both cover markets quite evenly) Sometimes misstated facts (later corrected) Too long (filler words) Watered down (allows average Joe who took micro/macro-econ to understand)
FT: Euro focused (both cover markets quite evenly) Rarely misstated facts Very concise Intellectual read - (i.e. connect textbook theories with markets - sometimes at very high levels) They assume you're very well educated in finance, accounting, economics, politics, legal, markets - so when you don't understand something, you're influenced to go look it up via google
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.
the new sports page is awesome by the way. they have a number crunching, statistician's take on the games. odds, percentages, and so predictive modeling.
King, I don't know what paper you're reading, but the FT is arguably as blatantly UK-skewed as the WSJ is right wing. I'm a right winger myself so I prefer the journal. I also work in NYC, so it makes more sense to read the journal. I think the writing and reporting in the FT is on par with the journal, I just get fed up with the whole euorness of it.
FYI, I subscribe to both papers. In the morning I start with the journal and then I read the FT, skipping over any overlapping stories. Although if I lived/worked in the UK I would only read the journal's editorials online and keep the FT as my main paper. They're both great, just depends on where you live.
Our bschool has free WSJ delivered every day, so that's what I usually read, but I've got an FT feed on my Google Reader and I still read as much as I can from there. Definitely say FT is superior, especially since it's more globally focused.
both
Tried both, prefer WSJ
At my school, FT is given away for free, WSJ is not. But read both if possible.
At my school, FT, WSJ, NYT are free.
FT is superior. Concise, intellectual, global, accurate, and relevant. Also, I like the size a lot better, I don't like how thin the WSJ has become. And in addition, the color really stands out in my mind, and when I see that pink I crave some Martin Wolf, what a genius.
I get both, prefer the journal but I do enjoy when FT has special pieces, like the piece by Soros back at the end of January.
Prefer FT. More concise as others have said. Despite their differences reading both seems a bit redundant. I barely have the time or mental stamina to get through one!
In Europe, definetely FT, although I like the WSJ format size for reading ease.
...Pink!
read both
Much more global view, condensed, no bullshit, you can read it in 30m on the train, no distractions such as sports or main street. Plus, the regulars such as Wolf, Taleb, Roubini, Summers, Mohamed the PIMCO guy, the BRIC guy, etc...
A much better paper, period.
FT
I read both. Everyone should. They're not substitutes for one another.
WSJ's second section is a must-read if you do anything in investments. On American company news, especially trend items, the FT doesn't begin to compete.
WSJ editorial page sucks bigtime, not because it's rightwing but because it reflects trailer trash values. Which I don't understand because Wall Street/Corporate America don't much care for stuff that gets corn-shuckin' banjo-pluckin' sister fuckin' hillbilly retards all fired up.
The FT's got a far more sophisticated outlook on the world. Conservative without being deranged. The weekend FT is why I get out of bed on Saturdays.
And that monthly weekend supplement -- "How to Spend It" -- wow. They're not pretending their demographic is anybody but the very rich and those of us who plan to become very rich.
The editor and publisher of the IHT also admitted to an elite slant, and didn't shy away from it at all. It was actually pretty refreshing to hear someone in the media embrace their elitism and hold their journalists to a higher standard.
To paraphrase what the managing editor said, people who read the International Herald Tribune regularly are equipped to discuss any of a myriad of subjects (business, fashion, architecture, etc...) at a high level with anyone they happen to meet at a dinner party.
They are committed to NOT dumbing down their paper, and the FT is as well. I think the ad revenue speaks for itself.
You can get Free student access to the Financial Times online – worth $109. through facebook by searching: Financial Times Free Student Subscription Offer
FT hands down. Broader viewpoint, killer commentary & analysis and you know that real men read pink.
FT by a mile. Although I like WSJ for a quick read to.
...enough said
First of all hello to everybody, this is my first post here.
After reading this and other threads about FT and WSJ, I decided to give my opinion.
I've noticed that the coverage of the news from FT and WSJ varies greatly. Sometimes FT has the news before WSJ or even news that the WSJ doesn't have. But other times, the WSJ has some news before FT or even news FT doesn't have. Which one is better? I believe they have a different focus, WSJ a more american/global focus and FT a more european/global focus.
I believe the question is whether the WSJ has the credibility it has before Murdoch bought it. This is a question I can't answer, because I'm 18 and just been reading both newspapers (FT always online and just one print edition of WSJ) for some months.
FT is certainly the more relevant of the two right now, with the euro debt crisis being such a major part of investor sentiment. The WSJ can be excellent at times but the FT has become my paper of reference for its conciseness and the Lex column. Some of the WSJ's op-eds have been patently laughable as well, what with all the guys pinning the crisis on the Community Reinvestment Act and other discredited nonsense.
For me, FT by a mile. It's better written, much more relevant news for traders, great coverage of global markets, more intellectual and elitist, etc. The alphaville and lex sections are must-reads.
alphathrottle is pretty much all i use now
Very nice, I'd never seen that. SB for you.
content-wise I prefer FT. but more and more i read the news on my iPad. The WSJ app is so sick.
FT is the better, in my opinion. Simple, short, and to the point.
I'm especially addicted to the Lex...god I love that section so much.
KevinFromPorkland : Do you get paper or digital for the lex column
WSJ vs Financial Times (Originally Posted: 05/22/2008)
It wouldn't make sense for me to subscribe to both, so which one do you think is better? I like FT's international perspective, but WSJ seems a lot more popular.
Where do you work? What do you do?
If you do anything with any sort of international implications a strong case can be made for FT.
For most financial jobs in the US, the WSJ tends to have more relevant content.
If you are in equity research you should read both
just my 2 cents
Like it was mentioned, depends on what your job requires, but I would go with the FT every day of the week. Then again, I like to stay informed on international news more than the average joe.
Unde blanditiis illo modi ab. Veritatis quasi quis dolore autem molestias ea animi. Enim illum totam omnis et itaque beatae saepe. Ipsum sit velit in qui alias reiciendis. Sint ab minima autem et. Optio et est omnis in qui tenetur. Et doloremque culpa corrupti quasi.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Molestiae voluptatem et illo labore ut. Numquam quos molestiae eos dolores molestiae aliquam odio.
Veniam veniam blanditiis corrupti accusantium. Ut itaque non in consequatur rerum. Quasi iusto voluptatem cum unde qui dolorum rem. Ipsam et mollitia amet distinctio recusandae veniam nemo velit. Sit ipsam eius nisi possimus aut. Corrupti voluptas aliquam commodi ducimus. Autem fugit sint culpa quia dolor cupiditate.