Centene vs Humana
CNC and HUM side by side, both in accident and health insurance and medical. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How CNC and HUM compare
Humana is the larger company, worth 1.5 times as much as Centene ($49.8B against $33.8B).
Humana grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (18.3% versus 13.9% for Centene).
Humana keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 0.88% compared with −2.5% at Centene.
Humana pays a dividend yielding 0.64%; Centene does not pay one.
Humana scores higher on the StockData Score (9 against 6 for Centene), 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 | CNC | HUM |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $33.8B | $49.8B |
| Share price | $68.45 | $414.50 |
| Change, 1 year | 83.3% | 41.6% |
| Change, 5 years | −7.7% | −8.6% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.50 | 0.46 |
| Employees | 61K | 67K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 6 | 9 (better) |
| Valuation score | 2 (better) | 1 |
| Growth score | 2 | 2 |
| Performance score | 0 | 1 (better) |
| Health score | 2 (better) | 1 |
| Dividend score | 0 | 4 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | – | 39.1× |
| P/S | 0.2× (better) | 0.3× |
| P/B | 1.5× (better) | 2.6× |
| EV/EBITDA | – | 12.0× |
| P/FCF | 3.8× (better) | 25.5× |
| FCF yield | 26.5% (better) | 3.9% |
| Fair value | – | $295.47 |
| Margin of safety | – | −40.3% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 13.9% | 18.3% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 11.9% (better) | 10.9% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −348% | −18.8% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −358% | −18.8% (better) |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | – | −17.2% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 8.0% | – |
| Operating margin | −2.8% | 1.9% (better) |
| Net margin | −2.5% | 0.88% (better) |
| FCF margin | 4.4% (better) | 1.3% |
| Return on equity | −20.4% | 6.8% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | −22.7% | 23.4% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.71 (better) | 0.74 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | – | −2.86 |
| Interest coverage | −8.6× | 3.8× (better) |
| Current ratio | 1.15 | 1.74 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 2.83 | 4.60 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 4 | 5 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | – | 0.64% |
| Payout ratio | – | 33.6% |
| Years of dividend growth | – | 0 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | – | 7.8% |
| Buyback yield | −0.01% | 0.30% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | −0.01% | 0.94% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 98.8% | 98.6% |
| Held by insiders | 0.79% | 0.33% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$14.6M | $150K (better) |
| Superinvestors holding | 3 (better) | 2 |
| Short interest, % of float | 2.1% | 2.3% |
Go deeper
- CNC stock overview
- CNC income statement
- CNC valuation and score
- HUM stock overview
- HUM income statement
- HUM valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.