Henry Ford's wealth explosion was explosive but compressed: he went from nothing to nearly $200M in less than two decades by maintaining total control of a single product line (Model T) and reinvesting profits obsessively. His peak in 1918 captured a moment of industrial dominance before the market matured. Sloan, entering GM decades later, inherited a fragmented mess of competing divisions and methodically consolidated them into a rational hierarchy with annual model refreshes and market segmentation. Ford's genius was revolutionary; Sloan's was evolutionary—but evolution compounds.

The structural difference is everything. Ford hoarded capital and resisted the corporate model, keeping ownership concentrated and decision-making centralized around his personality. This made him phenomenally wealthy for a moment but vulnerable; when market preferences shifted toward variety (not just cheap black Model Ts), Ford's rigid empire began its slow collapse. Sloan, conversely, distributed authority across divisions while centralizing financial control—creating bureaucratic stability that outlasted any single leader. His wealth was smaller but his company's durability was exponentially greater.

Inflation-adjusted, Ford looks like a meteor: intense, magnificent, but temporary. Sloan looks like a steady star: his $800M peak doesn't grab headlines, but his system generated wealth for a century of successors. Ford made more money faster; Sloan made more money longer—and in capitalism, longevity compounds into dynasties while meteors just make noise.