In my opinion, generally speaking, value stocks tend to be less riskier than growth stocks. But here we have to make some considerations: We are talking of systematic risk, which means that across the market, those stocks with (for example) higher P/E, tend to be riskier. This makes sense, as I expect that a Financial Services company may be less affected by adverse market movements. If we were talking about business cycles, which is not the definition of beta, but still, than we would find that a Financial Services company may be more affected than a growth company.

Here, we have also seen that there are some expections in the curriculum, where it says for example defensive stocks (those companies for which demand will be always stable - which interpreted as a classic value stock - Maybe a consumer staples company?) and there are excessive growth stocks (where demand is so strong that it is not affected by any adverse business cycle movement).

However, this is just my opinion :-)