Inc. senior writer Jeremy Quittner recently posted an interesting side by side comparison of the positions of Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton on business-related issues. While  that list is accurate and useful, it has a serious limitation.

Framing the argument in term of the  "best choice for business" implies that a there's a monolithic entity or group of people (i.e. "business") which shares the same interests. That's not the case. 

A large hedge fund trader and a small independent bookstore are both technically "business." However, such firms are so different and make money in such different ways that few government policies are likely to favor both.

With that in mind, there are three general areas where a Clinton or Sanders presidency would affect businesses of different sizes in different ways.

1. Financial Regulation

As The Atlantic magazine recently pointed out, Clinton sees today's level of government regulation as fundamentally functional.  Like Obama, she is a technocrat who wants to better tune the current system so that it operates more fairly. 

Because Clinton supports tweaking the status quo, her policies (insofar as she can implement them) will tend to benefit the (mostly large) firms prospering under the current system of regulation.

By contrast, Sanders believes that the current system is fundamentally flawed and therefore requires a major structural change. He therefore wants to break up the "too big to fail" banks and tax financial transactions. 

Because Sanders supports structural change, his policies (again insofar as he can implement them) would probably create a more dispersed, localized banking system that might be more likely to invest money to small businesses.

2. Trade Policy

As a mainstream Democrat, Clinton, like most mainstream Republicans and the vast majority of the world's economists, believes that free trade ultimately and eventually will make the United States more prosperous.

The Bill Clinton presidency supported and promoted NAFTA and as Senator and Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton has been a staunch supporter of "free trade."  For example, until quite recently, she was in favor of the TTP.

As a democratic socialist, Sanders has opposed free trade (as implemented in agreements like NAFTA and TPP) throughout his political career. He believes that that such agreements have depressed wages and exported jobs abroad.

Sanders would probably veto future trade agreements and attempt to extract us from, or ameliorate the effect of, existing agreements. If successful, this would create an advantage for businesses that manufacture products in the United States.

The weakening of these agreements would be negative for the (mostly large) firms that manufacture products in the U.S. for export, but positive for (mostly small) firms that manufacture products for domestic use.

3. Foreign Intervention

As both a Senator and a Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton has strongly supported using military force to intervene in the Middle East.  As both a Representative and Senator, Bernie Sanders has strongly opposed using the military in this manner.

If Clinton becomes President, she will probably drive increased spending on military equipment and technology. This strategy will benefit the (mostly large) firms that provide such products under government contract.

By contrast, if elected President, Sanders will look to extract the United States from quagmires, and shift spending away from the military and towards education and infrastructure.  This will benefit the (mostly small) firms that service those markets.

To summarize, Clinton has staked out positions that support the status quo and the continued ascendancy of big business, while Sanders has staked out positions that are hostile to the status quo and thus more advantageous to small business.

Put another way, a Clinton presidency would be better for "Wall Street" businesses while a Sanders presidency would be better for "Main Street" business.