Cencora vs McKesson
COR and MCK side by side, both in wholesale trade-non-durable goods. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How COR and MCK compare
McKesson is the larger company, worth 1.8 times as much as Cencora ($116B against $63.1B).
On earnings, Cencora is cheaper: it trades at 24.6× trailing earnings, against 26.6× for McKesson.
McKesson grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (8.8% versus 5.1% for Cencora).
McKesson keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 1.1% compared with 0.79% at Cencora.
Both pay dividends: Cencora yields 0.73% and McKesson 0.34%.
McKesson scores higher on the StockData Score (16 against 15 for Cencora), 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 | COR | MCK |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $63.1B | $116B |
| Share price | $330.84 | $994.58 |
| Change, 1 year | −0.70% | 23.1% |
| Change, 5 years | 159% | 349% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.33 | 0.31 |
| Employees | 51K | 43K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 15 | 16 (better) |
| Valuation score | 1 | 1 |
| Growth score | 3 | 5 (better) |
| Performance score | 5 (better) | 3 |
| Health score | 2 | 3 (better) |
| Dividend score | 4 | 4 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 24.6× (better) | 26.6× |
| P/S | 0.2× (better) | 0.3× |
| P/B | 20.7× | – |
| EV/EBITDA | 17.7× (better) | 17.7× |
| P/FCF | 15.5× (better) | 18.1× |
| PEG | – | 1.74 |
| FCF yield | 6.4% (better) | 5.5% |
| Fair value | $287.88 | $851.89 |
| Margin of safety | −14.9% (better) | −16.8% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 5.1% | 8.8% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 11.1% | 11.1% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 38.3% | 45.1% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 38.6% | 49.0% (better) |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 4.0% (better) | 3.6% |
| Operating margin | 0.91% | 1.6% (better) |
| Net margin | 0.79% | 1.1% (better) |
| FCF margin | 1.2% | 1.6% (better) |
| Return on equity | 104% | – |
| Return on invested capital | 22.3% | 287% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 3.84 | – |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 2.18 | 0.67 (better) |
| Interest coverage | – | 23.6× |
| Current ratio | 0.93 (better) | 0.89 |
| Altman Z-score | 4.66 | 5.91 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 7 (better) | 6 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 0.73% (better) | 0.34% |
| Payout ratio | 17.8% | 8.6% |
| Years of dividend growth | 16 (better) | 13 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 5.8% | 13.7% (better) |
| Buyback yield | 1.6% | 5.8% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 2.3% | 6.1% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 96.1% | 90.4% |
| Held by insiders | 5.4% | 0.05% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$12.4M (better) | −$28.3M |
| Superinvestors holding | – | 1 |
| Short interest, % of float | 2.2% | 2.0% |
Go deeper
- COR stock overview
- COR income statement
- COR valuation and score
- MCK stock overview
- MCK income statement
- MCK valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.