Equitable vs Willis Towers Watson
EQH and WTW 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 WTW compare
Willis Towers Watson is the larger company, worth 2.0 times as much as Equitable ($30.1B against $14.7B).
Willis Towers Watson grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (4.8% versus −22.1% for Equitable).
Willis Towers Watson keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 15.2% compared with −8.7% at Equitable.
Both pay dividends: Equitable yields 2.1% and Willis Towers Watson 1.2%.
Willis Towers Watson scores higher on the StockData Score (18 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 | WTW |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $14.7B | $30.1B |
| Share price | $53.85 | $324.42 |
| Change, 1 year | 13.0% | 2.2% |
| Change, 5 years | 53.0% | 40.3% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.19 | 0.56 |
| Employees | 8,000 | 47K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 5 | 18 (better) |
| Valuation score | 1 | 5 (better) |
| Growth score | 1 | 2 (better) |
| Performance score | 0 | 4 (better) |
| Health score | 1 | 3 (better) |
| Dividend score | 2 | 4 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | – | 19.7× |
| P/S | 1.4× (better) | 2.9× |
| P/B | – | 3.9× |
| EV/EBITDA | – | 15.4× |
| P/FCF | – | 17.3× |
| PEG | – | 0.90 |
| FCF yield | – | 5.8% |
| Fair value | – | $392.20 |
| Margin of safety | – | 17.3% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | −22.1% | 4.8% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | −1.2% | 2.4% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −295% | −26.1% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −368% | – |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | – | 16.3% |
| Profitability | ||
| Operating margin | – | 22.0% |
| Net margin | −8.7% | 15.2% (better) |
| FCF margin | – | 17.0% |
| Return on equity | −509% | 20.2% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | – | 15.4% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | – | 0.84 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | – | 2.02 |
| Interest coverage | – | 7.5× |
| Current ratio | – | 1.10 |
| Altman Z-score | 0.09 | 1.43 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 4 | 7 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 2.1% (better) | 1.2% |
| Payout ratio | – | 22.8% |
| Years of dividend growth | 8 | 9 (better) |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 9.7% (better) | 6.0% |
| Buyback yield | 10.0% (better) | 4.4% |
| Shareholder yield | 12.1% (better) | 5.6% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 97.2% | 103% |
| Held by insiders | 0.59% | 0.41% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$28.5M | $911K (better) |
| Superinvestors holding | 3 (better) | 2 |
| Short interest, % of float | 2.0% | 3.2% |
Go deeper
- EQH stock overview
- EQH income statement
- EQH valuation and score
- WTW stock overview
- WTW income statement
- WTW valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.