Brown & Brown vs Marsh & McLennan Companies
BRO and MRSH side by side, both in insurance agents, brokers, and service. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How BRO and MRSH compare
Marsh & McLennan Companies is the larger company, worth 4.1 times as much as Brown & Brown ($95.7B against $23.3B).
On earnings, Brown & Brown is cheaper: it trades at 20.8× trailing earnings, against 24.0× for Marsh & McLennan Companies.
Brown & Brown grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (34.2% versus 7.6% for Marsh & McLennan Companies).
Brown & Brown keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 17.7% compared with 14.2% at Marsh & McLennan Companies.
Both pay dividends: Brown & Brown yields 0.95% and Marsh & McLennan Companies 1.9%.
Brown & Brown scores higher on the StockData Score (14 against 13 for Marsh & McLennan 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 | BRO | MRSH |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $23.3B | $95.7B |
| Share price | $69.76 | $200.62 |
| Change, 1 year | −13.1% | 11.5% |
| Change, 5 years | 12.6% | 24.3% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.66 | 0.61 |
| Employees | 23K | 95K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 14 (better) | 13 |
| Valuation score | 2 | 3 (better) |
| Growth score | 4 (better) | 1 |
| Performance score | 3 | 3 |
| Health score | 1 | 3 (better) |
| Dividend score | 4 (better) | 3 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 20.8× (better) | 24.0× |
| P/S | 3.4× | 3.4× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | – | 17.8× |
| P/FCF | 16.1× (better) | 23.0× |
| PEG | 2.07 | 2.04 (better) |
| FCF yield | 6.2% (better) | 4.3% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 34.2% (better) | 7.6% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 17.7% (better) | 9.4% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 19.8% (better) | −2.1% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −3.2% | 0.12% (better) |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 13.3% | 16.4% (better) |
| Profitability | ||
| Operating margin | – | 21.4% |
| Net margin | 17.7% (better) | 14.2% |
| FCF margin | 21.3% (better) | 14.6% |
| Financial health | ||
| Net debt / EBITDA | – | 2.90 |
| Interest coverage | – | 6.3× |
| Current ratio | 1.13 (better) | 1.09 |
| Altman Z-score | 1.43 | 2.81 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 4 | 5 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 0.95% | 1.9% (better) |
| Payout ratio | 18.2% | 44.5% |
| Years of dividend growth | 10 (better) | 3 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 12.1% | – |
| Buyback yield | – | 3.2% |
| Shareholder yield | 0.95% | 5.0% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 87.8% | 92.0% |
| Held by insiders | 12.2% | 0.10% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | $164K (better) | −$18.9M |
| Superinvestors holding | 2 | 2 |
| Short interest, % of float | 4.8% | 1.3% |
Go deeper
- BRO stock overview
- BRO income statement
- BRO valuation and score
- MRSH stock overview
- MRSH income statement
- MRSH valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.