Lately, thanks to financial television’s hunger for content, money managers are starting to behave a little bit like professional wrestlers trash talking outside of the ring.

Ackman versus Icahn. Gross versus El-Arian. Imagine “Nature Boy” Ric Flair or Dusty “The American Dream” Rhodes  (Okay, I’m dating myself) with an MBA, running a couple hundred billion dollars.

#-ad_banner-#Strangely, Warren “The Oracle of Omaha” Buffett has been dragged into the fray by Carl “The Raider” Icahn.  In a sideline interview at the annual Robin Hood Investor’s Conference, Ichan suggested that Buffett take a more active corporate governance role in some of Berkshire Hathaway, Inc.’s (NYSE: BRK-A)  higher profile holdings.

There’s no denying that Ichan is one of the sharpest value investors in the game. And Buffett’s reputation is the stuff of American legend. But really, Carl?

Buffett chants his core investment belief like a mantra: buy great companies with deep-moat franchises and good management, and leave them alone. The result makes money for shareholders — activism isn’t his style.

Icahn’s style is activist. He’s also a deeper value kind of guy, buying the stock of a company that’s stumbled. If he buys enough stock, then he gets seats on the board and affects change that way. If it works, share prices increase and shareholders make money.

Pictures are always worth a thousand words, and in our business, charts are the photographs of the industry. Let’s take a look at Icahn and Buffett’s respective operating entities: Icahn Enterprises LP (Nasdaq: IEP) and Berkshire Hathaway.

Over the last two decades, you’ve made money with Carl: 63% on average annually. That’s gigantic.

On average, Berkshire shareholders stacked up 46% annually for the same time period.

Head-to-head, it would look like the Raider smacked down the Oracle by 48%. But there’s more to this than meets the eye.

In the professional investment racket, how you handle things on the downside is trumpeted almost as loudly as upside performance. The official term is “drawdown” — or the percent change between a peak and trough over a given time.

Here’s where things get contentious.

From the market top to the bottom during the 2008-2009 financial crisis, Berkshire shares gave up 42%. Not bad when you consider that the drawdown for the S&P 500 was -57% over the same time period. Essentially, Buffett’s portfolio had 26% less downside risk than the overall market.

Icahn’s chart tells a completely different story: very high highs, very low lows. The maximum drawdown for IEP over the same time period was a whopping -90%.

So, while Icahn “beat” Buffett by 48% on the upside, Icahn shareholders gave up 114% more than Berkshire folks.

Plus, during the great bull run of the 90’s, despite limited tech exposure, Berkshire shareholders enjoyed average annual returns of nearly 60%. Icahn Enterprises’ results were nonexistent for a time when it was hard not to make money.

The takeaway here is that different styles produce different results. Icahn makes big, vocal bets and uses the bully pulpit of the media to forward his investment agenda. Buffett has an extremely methodical discipline that focusses on high quality as well as diversification.

Both men are brilliant. But the bottom line is that if you follow these gurus into investments, then Buffett may be the better choice — he is far more consistent than Icahn with less risk.

Risks to consider: Keep in mind both men deal with enormous pools of money. They can afford to take gigantic bets and lose money. Always keep in mind your own personal risk parameters.

Also, while KO and MCD are fantastic franchises, they are experiencing some slowing in their core businesses due to shifting demographics, health trends and increased domestic competition.

Action To Take –> Thanks to the recent market declines, longer term investors may want to do their Oracle of Omaha impression by taking a look at the Buffett holding The Coca-Cola Co. (NYSE: KO) and the Buffett-style stock McDonald’s Corp. (NYSE: MCD).

Despite being slapped around a bit of late, both stocks look attractive. Mickey D’s has grown revenue at a 5% annual clip over the last five years, while earnings per share rose at a 7% rate.

Coke turned in annual revenue growth of 10%, with EPS growth of 6% over the last five years. Double digit sales growth for a business the size of Coke is enough to move the needle in a big way.

Remember, these are two of the biggest, if not the biggest, brands on the planet, and they are growing sales faster than global GDP, which is currently around 3.7%.

MCD trades at around $91 — a 12% discount to its 52-week high — with a 3.7% dividend yield. KO shares trade hands at around $41 — a 9% discount to its 52 week high — and carry a 3% dividend yield.

If following the gurus doesn’t excite you, then follow StreetAuthority’s lead. In our latest research, we found the “Top 10 Stocks To Hold Forever.” These, like McDonald’s and Coke, are world-dominating firms, with entrenched moats and shareholder-friendly tendencies. For more information about Top 10 Stocks, click here.