Bausch Health Companies vs Zoetis
BHC and ZTS side by side, both in drugs. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How BHC and ZTS compare
Zoetis is the larger company, worth 11 times as much as Bausch Health Companies ($32.9B against $3.1B).
Bausch Health Companies grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (10.1% versus 1.5% for Zoetis).
Zoetis keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 27.5% compared with −10.1% at Bausch Health Companies.
Zoetis pays a dividend yielding 2.6%; Bausch Health Companies does not pay one.
Zoetis scores higher on the StockData Score (17 against 7 for Bausch Health Companies), 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 | BHC | ZTS |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $3.1B | $32.9B |
| Share price | $8.20 | $79.72 |
| Change, 1 year | 39.0% | −44.6% |
| Change, 5 years | −70.7% | −63.2% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.05 | 0.78 |
| Employees | 20K | 15K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 7 | 17 (better) |
| Valuation score | 3 | 5 (better) |
| Growth score | 2 | 2 |
| Performance score | 1 | 5 (better) |
| Health score | 1 | 3 (better) |
| Dividend score | 0 | 2 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | – | 13.1× |
| P/S | 0.3× (better) | 3.5× |
| P/B | – | 10.5× |
| EV/EBITDA | 11.2× | 10.1× (better) |
| P/FCF | 2.1× (better) | 14.2× |
| PEG | – | 1.28 |
| FCF yield | 46.7% (better) | 7.0% |
| Fair value | $24.85 | $152.11 |
| Margin of safety | 67.0% (better) | 47.6% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 10.1% (better) | 1.5% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 5.0% | 7.2% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −1220% | 0.96% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −1238% | 5.6% (better) |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | – | 12.0% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | – | 71.5% |
| Operating margin | 8.1% | – |
| Net margin | −10.1% | 27.5% (better) |
| FCF margin | 13.2% | 24.3% (better) |
| Return on equity | – | 64.4% |
| Return on invested capital | 3.8% | – |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | – | 2.87 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 9.20 | 1.85 (better) |
| Interest coverage | 0.5× | – |
| Current ratio | 1.44 | 3.08 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 0.11 | 3.99 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 6 | 8 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | – | 2.6% |
| Years of dividend growth | – | 13 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | – | 19.0% |
| Buyback yield | – | 11.1% |
| Shareholder yield | 0.00% | 13.7% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 63.4% | 96.1% |
| Held by insiders | 31.5% | 0.08% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | $15.1M (better) | −$1.7M |
| Superinvestors holding | 1 | 3 (better) |
| Short interest, % of float | 3.3% | 4.5% |
Go deeper
- BHC stock overview
- BHC income statement
- BHC valuation and score
- ZTS stock overview
- ZTS income statement
- ZTS valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.