BrightSpring Health Services vs DaVita
BTSG and DVA side by side, both in health services. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How BTSG and DVA compare
BrightSpring Health Services and DaVita are about the same size, with market caps of $13.2B and $12.0B.
On earnings, DaVita is cheaper: it trades at 13.8× trailing earnings, against 36.4× for BrightSpring Health Services.
BrightSpring Health Services grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (26.0% versus 6.4% for DaVita).
DaVita keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 6.5% compared with 2.7% at BrightSpring Health Services.
DaVita scores higher on the StockData Score (13 against 11 for BrightSpring Health Services), 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 | BTSG | DVA |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $13.2B | $12.0B |
| Share price | $66.89 | $187.50 |
| Change, 1 year | 96.4% | 48.2% |
| Change, 5 years | – | 71.5% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.05 | 0.39 |
| Employees | 24K | 78K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 11 | 13 (better) |
| Valuation score | 1 | 5 (better) |
| Growth score | 3 | 4 (better) |
| Performance score | 4 (better) | 3 |
| Health score | 3 (better) | 1 |
| Dividend score | 0 | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 36.4× | 13.8× (better) |
| P/S | 0.9× | 0.8× (better) |
| P/B | 6.1× | – |
| EV/EBITDA | 21.7× | 8.0× (better) |
| P/FCF | 26.9× | 9.2× (better) |
| PEG | – | 0.73 |
| FCF yield | 3.7% | 10.8% (better) |
| Fair value | $46.01 | $299.15 |
| Margin of safety | −45.4% | 37.3% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 26.0% (better) | 6.4% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | – | 3.4% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 217% (better) | 19.2% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 202% (better) | 39.9% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | – | 9.3% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 12.5% | – |
| Operating margin | 3.4% | 15.0% (better) |
| Net margin | 2.7% | 6.5% (better) |
| FCF margin | 3.2% | 9.1% (better) |
| Return on equity | 20.5% | – |
| Return on invested capital | 11.0% | 18.1% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 1.00 | – |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 2.16 (better) | 3.63 |
| Interest coverage | 3.6× | – |
| Current ratio | 1.62 (better) | 1.41 |
| Altman Z-score | 4.89 (better) | 1.72 |
| Piotroski F-score | 7 (better) | 6 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Buyback yield | – | 6.1% |
| Shareholder yield | 0.00% | 6.1% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 105% | 92.5% |
| Held by insiders | 36.2% | 58.4% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$3.4B | −$454M (better) |
| Superinvestors holding | 1 | 1 |
| Short interest, % of float | – | 19.4% |
Go deeper
- BTSG stock overview
- BTSG income statement
- BTSG valuation and score
- DVA stock overview
- DVA income statement
- DVA valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.