Previous studies documented that portfolios composed of value stocks show superior performances as compared to portfolios composed of growth stocks in various settings and through time. My research on value and growth stocks does not conform towards previous empirical evidence. The empirical results obtained from individual countries are invalid to derive statistical conclusions and are therefore diminished. This can be assignable towards the subject of small sample sizes within individual countries. Therefore, the results are discussed for global value and growth portfolios only. From a statistical point of view, there is indifference in average and median monthly returns obtained between value and growth portfolios. The outcomes (t-statistics and p-values) of the two-sample one-tailed t-test and two-sample one-tailed Mann-Whitney test are statistically insignificant to provide support for a statistical difference. Therefore, hypothesis one, which stated that during the financial crisis of 2007-2010, portfolios composed of value stocks provide higher returns than portfolios composed of growth stocks cannot be accepted. From the outcomes obtained, I conclude that, statistically, portfolios composed of value stocks do not provide higher total returns than portfolios composed of growth stocks during the financial crisis of 2007-2010.