Ardent Health vs Universal Health Services
ARDT and UHS side by side, both in health services. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How ARDT and UHS compare
Universal Health Services is the larger company, worth 6.1 times as much as Ardent Health ($10.4B against $1.7B).
On earnings, Universal Health Services is cheaper: it trades at 7.2× trailing earnings, against 21.9× for Ardent Health.
Universal Health Services grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (10.0% versus 3.3% for Ardent Health).
Universal Health Services keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 8.4% compared with 1.2% at Ardent Health.
Universal Health Services pays a dividend yielding 0.45%; Ardent Health does not pay one.
Universal Health Services scores higher on the StockData Score (22 against 8 for Ardent Health), which adds up 30 checks on valuation, growth, past performance, financial health and dividends.
Key numbers
A dot marks the better figure where higher or lower is clearly better.
| Metric | ARDT | UHS |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $1.7B | $10.4B |
| Share price | $12.03 | $176.05 |
| Change, 1 year | −19.9% | −21.9% |
| Change, 5 years | – | 35.5% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.56 | 0.79 |
| Employees | 25K | 102K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 8 | 22 (better) |
| Valuation score | 4 | 6 (better) |
| Growth score | 0 | 3 (better) |
| Performance score | 2 | 6 (better) |
| Health score | 2 | 3 (better) |
| Dividend score | 0 | 4 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 21.9× | 7.2× (better) |
| P/S | 0.3× (better) | 0.6× |
| P/B | 1.3× (better) | 1.4× |
| EV/EBITDA | 6.6× | 5.6× (better) |
| P/FCF | – | 12.3× |
| PEG | – | 0.20 |
| FCF yield | – | 8.1% |
| Fair value | $18.80 | $340.27 |
| Margin of safety | 36.0% | 48.3% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 3.3% | 10.0% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | – | 8.5% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −69.3% | 21.0% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −69.6% | 29.3% (better) |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | – | 16.0% |
| Profitability | ||
| Operating margin | – | 11.4% |
| Net margin | 1.2% | 8.4% (better) |
| FCF margin | – | 4.7% |
| Return on equity | 6.0% | 21.0% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | – | 13.3% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.82 | 0.65 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 1.01 (better) | 1.75 |
| Interest coverage | – | 13.1× |
| Current ratio | 2.10 (better) | 1.12 |
| Altman Z-score | 1.89 | 2.34 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 6 | 7 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | – | 0.45% |
| Payout ratio | – | 3.2% |
| Years of dividend growth | – | 0 |
| Buyback yield | – | 10.2% |
| Shareholder yield | 0.00% | 10.6% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 76.9% | 96.4% |
| Held by insiders | 78.9% | 17.1% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | $186K (better) | −$980K |
| Short interest, % of float | 15.6% | 5.2% |
Go deeper
- ARDT stock overview
- ARDT income statement
- ARDT valuation and score
- UHS stock overview
- UHS income statement
- UHS valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.