Equitable vs Marsh & McLennan Companies
EQH and MRSH side by side, both in insurance agents, brokers, and service. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How EQH and MRSH compare
Marsh & McLennan Companies is the larger company, worth 6.5 times as much as Equitable ($95.7B against $14.7B).
Marsh & McLennan Companies grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (7.6% versus −22.1% for Equitable).
Marsh & McLennan Companies keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 14.2% compared with −8.7% at Equitable.
Both pay dividends: Equitable yields 2.1% and Marsh & McLennan Companies 1.9%.
Marsh & McLennan Companies scores higher on the StockData Score (13 against 5 for Equitable), 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 | EQH | MRSH |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $14.7B | $95.7B |
| Share price | $53.85 | $200.62 |
| Change, 1 year | 13.0% | 11.5% |
| Change, 5 years | 53.0% | 24.3% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.19 | 0.61 |
| Employees | 8,000 | 95K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 5 | 13 (better) |
| Valuation score | 1 | 3 (better) |
| Growth score | 1 | 1 |
| Performance score | 0 | 3 (better) |
| Health score | 1 | 3 (better) |
| Dividend score | 2 | 3 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | – | 24.0× |
| P/S | 1.4× (better) | 3.4× |
| EV/EBITDA | – | 17.8× |
| P/FCF | – | 23.0× |
| PEG | – | 2.04 |
| FCF yield | – | 4.3% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | −22.1% | 7.6% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | −1.2% | 9.4% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −295% | −2.1% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −368% | 0.12% (better) |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | – | 16.4% |
| Profitability | ||
| Operating margin | – | 21.4% |
| Net margin | −8.7% | 14.2% (better) |
| FCF margin | – | 14.6% |
| Return on equity | −509% | – |
| Financial health | ||
| Net debt / EBITDA | – | 2.90 |
| Interest coverage | – | 6.3× |
| Current ratio | – | 1.09 |
| Altman Z-score | 0.09 | 2.81 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 4 | 5 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 2.1% (better) | 1.9% |
| Payout ratio | – | 44.5% |
| Years of dividend growth | 8 (better) | 3 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 9.7% | – |
| Buyback yield | 10.0% (better) | 3.2% |
| Shareholder yield | 12.1% (better) | 5.0% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 97.2% | 92.0% |
| Held by insiders | 0.59% | 0.10% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$28.5M | −$18.9M (better) |
| Superinvestors holding | 3 (better) | 2 |
| Short interest, % of float | 2.0% | 1.3% |
Go deeper
- EQH stock overview
- EQH income statement
- EQH valuation and score
- MRSH stock overview
- MRSH income statement
- MRSH valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.