Home / Banks / Comparison

Goldman Sachs vs Citibank

Side-by-side credit pricing comparison from Pillar 3 disclosures.

Last updated: March 2026 · Data source: public Pillar 3 disclosures
Verdict:

On a representative BBB+ EUR 25M 5-year term loan, Citibank is the cheaper lender by 0bp in minimum spread. For a EUR 25M facility, that's EUR 0 per year.

Bank profiles compared

Metric Goldman Sachs
United States		 Citibank
United States
IRB approachA-IRBA-IRB
Cost-to-income60.0%65.0%
Effective tax rate24.0%24.0%
Avg corporate PD1.44%1.21%
Avg LGD unsecured32.5%36.6%
Avg LGD secured20.0%20.0%
Funding spread (bp)15bp15bp
Corporate EADEUR 823bnEUR 1301bn

Sample RAROC: BBB+ EUR 25M 5Y term loan

Both banks priced on the exact same deal — 150bp spread, 20bp commitment fee, 60-month maturity. Higher RAROC means the bank earns more from this deal. Lower min-spread means the borrower gets a better rate.

Component Goldman Sachs Citibank
Annual revenueEUR 385,000EUR 385,000
Operating costEUR 154,000EUR 154,000
Expected lossEUR 28,750EUR 28,750
Capital required (FPE)EUR 2,451,320EUR 2,451,320
RAROC (after tax)7.40%7.40%
Min spread for 12% RAROC249bp249bp
This is just one sample deal.

Your actual portfolio has different ratings, sizes, maturities, and collateral. The cheapest bank for one deal isn't always cheapest for another. Upload your real facilities and OpenRAROC will run the same calculation on each, against Goldman Sachs, Citibank, and 57 other banks.

Compare your portfolio

Read more

Goldman Sachs full profile Citibank full profile All banks RAROC methodology

FAQ: Goldman Sachs vs Citibank

Which bank is cheaper on corporate credit: Goldman Sachs or Citibank?
On a BBB+ EUR 25M 5-year term loan, Citibank requires a minimum spread of 249bp to reach a 12% RAROC hurdle, versus 249bp at the other bank — a difference of 0bp on the same deal.
How do Goldman Sachs and Citibank compare on corporate PD?
Goldman Sachs reports an EAD-weighted corporate PD of 1.44%, while Citibank reports 1.21%. The gap reflects differences in obligor mix and geography rather than underwriting quality.
How do the two banks differ on IRB approach?
Goldman Sachs uses A-IRB and Citibank uses A-IRB. The IRB approach determines whether internal LGD models or supervisory LGDs apply, which materially affects capital required on every corporate facility.
What deal is used in this comparison?
A single standardised facility: BBB+ rated, EUR 25M drawn on a EUR 30M commitment, 5-year tenor, 150bp spread, 20bp commitment fee. Both banks are priced on this exact deal using their own disclosed Pillar 3 parameters.