Community Health Systems vs Universal Health Services
CYH and UHS side by side, both in health services. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How CYH and UHS compare
Universal Health Services is the larger company, worth 31 times as much as Community Health Systems ($10.4B against $338M).
On earnings, Universal Health Services is cheaper: it trades at 7.2× trailing earnings, against 9.2× for Community Health Systems.
Universal Health Services grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (10.0% versus −7.8% for Community Health Systems).
Universal Health Services keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 8.4% compared with 0.31% at Community Health Systems.
Universal Health Services pays a dividend yielding 0.45%; Community Health Systems does not pay one.
Universal Health Services scores higher on the StockData Score (22 against 8 for Community Health Systems), 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 | CYH | UHS |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $338M | $10.4B |
| Share price | $2.40 | $176.05 |
| Change, 1 year | −43.0% | −21.9% |
| Change, 5 years | −83.3% | 35.5% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.69 | 0.79 |
| Employees | 57K | 102K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 8 | 22 (better) |
| Valuation score | 3 | 6 (better) |
| Growth score | 2 | 3 (better) |
| Performance score | 2 | 6 (better) |
| Health score | 1 | 3 (better) |
| Dividend score | 0 | 4 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 9.2× | 7.2× (better) |
| P/S | 0.0× (better) | 0.6× |
| P/B | – | 1.4× |
| EV/EBITDA | 5.9× | 5.6× (better) |
| P/FCF | – | 12.3× |
| PEG | 0.08 (better) | 0.20 |
| FCF yield | −36.0% | 8.1% (better) |
| Fair value | – | $340.27 |
| Margin of safety | – | 48.3% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | −7.8% | 10.0% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 1.2% | 8.5% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −89.1% | 21.0% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −89.3% | 29.3% (better) |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | −3.0% | 16.0% (better) |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 85.5% | – |
| Operating margin | 10.9% | 11.4% (better) |
| Net margin | 0.31% | 8.4% (better) |
| FCF margin | −1.0% | 4.7% (better) |
| Return on equity | – | 21.0% |
| Return on invested capital | 7.5% | 13.3% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | – | 0.65 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 5.54 | 1.75 (better) |
| Interest coverage | – | 13.1× |
| Current ratio | 1.48 (better) | 1.12 |
| Altman Z-score | 1.00 | 2.34 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 8 (better) | 7 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | – | 0.45% |
| Payout ratio | – | 3.2% |
| Years of dividend growth | – | 0 |
| Buyback yield | – | 10.2% |
| Shareholder yield | 0.00% | 10.6% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 82.7% | 96.4% |
| Held by insiders | 9.0% | 17.1% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$118K (better) | −$980K |
| Short interest, % of float | 9.6% | 5.2% |
Go deeper
- CYH stock overview
- CYH income statement
- CYH valuation and score
- UHS stock overview
- UHS income statement
- UHS valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.