Encompass Health vs PACS
EHC and PACS side by side, both in health services. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How EHC and PACS compare
Encompass Health is the larger company, worth 1.7 times as much as PACS ($13.0B against $7.6B).
On earnings, Encompass Health is cheaper: it trades at 21.4× trailing earnings, against 27.3× for PACS.
PACS grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (15.2% versus 9.5% for Encompass Health).
Encompass Health keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 10.0% compared with 4.8% at PACS.
Encompass Health pays a dividend yielding 0.59%; PACS does not pay one.
Encompass Health scores higher on the StockData Score (17 against 12 for PACS), 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 | EHC | PACS |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $13.0B | $7.6B |
| Share price | $131.49 | $47.81 |
| Change, 1 year | 4.1% | 284% |
| Change, 5 years | 102% | – |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.70 | 0.03 |
| Employees | 42K | 47K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 17 (better) | 12 |
| Valuation score | 2 (better) | 1 |
| Growth score | 4 | 4 |
| Performance score | 5 (better) | 4 |
| Health score | 3 | 3 |
| Dividend score | 3 (better) | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 21.4× (better) | 27.3× |
| P/S | 2.1× | 1.4× (better) |
| P/B | 5.0× (better) | 6.8× |
| EV/EBITDA | 10.9× (better) | 18.7× |
| P/FCF | 31.4× | – |
| PEG | 0.79 (better) | 19.45 |
| FCF yield | 3.2% | – |
| Fair value | $123.38 | $39.82 |
| Margin of safety | −6.6% (better) | −20.1% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 9.5% | 15.2% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 10.7% | – |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 18.8% | 104% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 20.2% | 113% (better) |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 14.2% | – |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | – | 23.5% |
| Operating margin | – | 7.4% |
| Net margin | 10.0% (better) | 4.8% |
| FCF margin | 6.7% | – |
| Return on equity | 25.5% | 28.1% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | – | 29.4% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 1.01 | 0.22 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 1.68 | 0.20 (better) |
| Interest coverage | – | 13.9× |
| Current ratio | 1.19 (better) | 0.91 |
| Altman Z-score | 2.81 (better) | 2.32 |
| Piotroski F-score | 8 (better) | 7 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 0.59% | – |
| Payout ratio | 12.1% | – |
| Years of dividend growth | 2 | – |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | −8.5% | – |
| Buyback yield | 1.9% | – |
| Shareholder yield | 2.5% (better) | 0.00% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 97.0% | 31.3% |
| Held by insiders | 1.0% | 78.7% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$47.8M (better) | −$79.4M |
| Short interest, % of float | 3.6% | 12.2% |
Go deeper
- EHC stock overview
- EHC income statement
- EHC valuation and score
- PACS stock overview
- PACS income statement
- PACS valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.