Elevance Health vs Humana
ELV 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 ELV and HUM compare
Elevance Health is the larger company, worth 1.8 times as much as Humana ($91.1B against $49.8B).
On earnings, Elevance Health is cheaper: it trades at 18.7× trailing earnings, against 39.1× for Humana.
Humana grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (18.3% versus 6.3% for Elevance Health).
Elevance Health keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 2.5% compared with 0.88% at Humana.
Both pay dividends: Elevance Health yields 1.6% and Humana 0.64%.
Elevance Health scores higher on the StockData Score (15 against 9 for Humana), 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 | ELV | HUM |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $91.1B | $49.8B |
| Share price | $420.07 | $414.50 |
| Change, 1 year | 24.9% | 41.6% |
| Change, 5 years | −0.47% | −8.6% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.44 | 0.46 |
| Employees | 97K | 67K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 15 (better) | 9 |
| Valuation score | 4 (better) | 1 |
| Growth score | 2 | 2 |
| Performance score | 3 (better) | 1 |
| Health score | 2 (better) | 1 |
| Dividend score | 4 | 4 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 18.7× (better) | 39.1× |
| P/S | 0.5× | 0.3× (better) |
| P/B | 2.0× (better) | 2.6× |
| EV/EBITDA | 12.4× | 12.0× (better) |
| P/FCF | 14.5× (better) | 25.5× |
| PEG | 14.81 | – |
| FCF yield | 6.9% (better) | 3.9% |
| Fair value | $477.08 | $295.47 |
| Margin of safety | 11.9% (better) | −40.3% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 6.3% | 18.3% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 10.3% | 10.9% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −7.4% (better) | −18.8% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −4.3% (better) | −18.8% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 7.0% (better) | −17.2% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 89.1% | – |
| Operating margin | 2.7% (better) | 1.9% |
| Net margin | 2.5% (better) | 0.88% |
| FCF margin | 3.1% (better) | 1.3% |
| Return on equity | 11.2% (better) | 6.8% |
| Return on invested capital | 11.5% | 23.4% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.69 (better) | 0.74 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | −0.70 | −2.86 |
| Interest coverage | 3.8× | 3.8× (better) |
| Current ratio | 1.52 | 1.74 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 3.03 | 4.60 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 6 (better) | 5 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 1.6% (better) | 0.64% |
| Payout ratio | 30.3% | 33.6% |
| Years of dividend growth | – | 0 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | – | 7.8% |
| Buyback yield | 3.0% (better) | 0.30% |
| Shareholder yield | 4.6% (better) | 0.94% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 94.0% | 98.6% |
| Held by insiders | 0.19% | 0.33% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | $493K (better) | $150K |
| Superinvestors holding | 8 (better) | 2 |
| Short interest, % of float | 2.2% | 2.3% |
Go deeper
- ELV stock overview
- ELV income statement
- ELV 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.