DaVita vs Labcorp
DVA and LH side by side, both in health services. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How DVA and LH compare
Labcorp is the larger company, worth 2.5 times as much as DaVita ($29.9B against $12.0B).
On earnings, DaVita is cheaper: it trades at 13.8× trailing earnings, against 30.2× for Labcorp.
DaVita grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (6.4% versus 6.0% for Labcorp).
Labcorp keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 6.9% compared with 6.5% at DaVita.
Labcorp pays a dividend yielding 0.78%; DaVita does not pay one.
DaVita scores higher on the StockData Score (13 against 11 for Labcorp), 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 | DVA | LH |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $12.0B | $29.9B |
| Share price | $187.50 | $368.16 |
| Change, 1 year | 48.2% | 41.8% |
| Change, 5 years | 71.5% | 34.0% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.39 | 0.61 |
| Employees | 78K | 71K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 13 (better) | 11 |
| Valuation score | 5 (better) | 0 |
| Growth score | 4 (better) | 2 |
| Performance score | 3 (better) | 2 |
| Health score | 1 | 4 (better) |
| Dividend score | 0 | 3 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 13.8× (better) | 30.2× |
| P/S | 0.8× (better) | 2.0× |
| P/B | – | 3.4× |
| EV/EBITDA | 8.0× (better) | 16.0× |
| P/FCF | 9.2× (better) | 23.2× |
| PEG | 0.73 | – |
| FCF yield | 10.8% (better) | 4.3% |
| Fair value | $299.15 | $356.26 |
| Margin of safety | 37.3% (better) | −3.3% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 6.4% (better) | 6.0% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 3.4% (better) | −0.04% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 19.2% (better) | 17.4% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 39.9% (better) | 19.6% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 9.3% (better) | −8.0% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | – | 29.0% |
| Operating margin | 15.0% (better) | 10.3% |
| Net margin | 6.5% | 6.9% (better) |
| FCF margin | 9.1% (better) | 8.8% |
| Return on equity | – | 11.4% |
| Return on invested capital | 18.1% (better) | 8.6% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | – | 0.66 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 3.63 | 2.53 (better) |
| Interest coverage | – | 6.5× |
| Current ratio | 1.41 (better) | 1.41 |
| Altman Z-score | 1.72 | 3.55 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 6 | 7 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | – | 0.78% |
| Payout ratio | – | 23.6% |
| Years of dividend growth | – | 0 |
| Buyback yield | 6.1% (better) | 2.3% |
| Shareholder yield | 6.1% (better) | 3.0% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 92.5% | 98.0% |
| Held by insiders | 58.4% | 0.40% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$454M | −$11.9M (better) |
| Superinvestors holding | 1 | 1 |
| Short interest, % of float | 19.4% | 3.3% |
Go deeper
- DVA stock overview
- DVA income statement
- DVA valuation and score
- LH stock overview
- LH income statement
- LH valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.