Humana vs Molina Healthcare
HUM and MOH 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 HUM and MOH compare
Humana is the larger company, worth 4.7 times as much as Molina Healthcare ($49.8B against $10.7B).
Humana grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (18.3% versus 2.6% for Molina Healthcare).
Humana keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 0.88% compared with −0.02% at Molina Healthcare.
Humana pays a dividend yielding 0.64%; Molina Healthcare does not pay one.
Humana scores higher on the StockData Score (9 against 5 for Molina Healthcare), 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 | HUM | MOH |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $49.8B | $10.7B |
| Share price | $414.50 | $204.78 |
| Change, 1 year | 41.6% | 27.8% |
| Change, 5 years | −8.6% | −32.7% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.46 | 0.25 |
| Employees | 67K | 19K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 9 (better) | 5 |
| Valuation score | 1 | 1 |
| Growth score | 2 | 2 |
| Performance score | 1 (better) | 0 |
| Health score | 1 | 2 (better) |
| Dividend score | 4 (better) | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 39.1× | – |
| P/S | 0.3× | 0.2× (better) |
| P/B | 2.6× | 2.6× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 12.0× (better) | 14.9× |
| P/FCF | 25.5× (better) | 39.4× |
| FCF yield | 3.9% (better) | 2.5% |
| Fair value | $295.47 | – |
| Margin of safety | −40.3% | – |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 18.3% (better) | 2.6% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 10.9% | 18.5% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −18.8% (better) | −101% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −18.8% (better) | −101% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | −17.2% | −4.5% (better) |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | – | 12.6% |
| Operating margin | 1.9% (better) | 0.46% |
| Net margin | 0.88% (better) | −0.02% |
| FCF margin | 1.3% (better) | 0.61% |
| Return on equity | 6.8% (better) | −0.16% |
| Return on invested capital | 23.4% | – |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.74 (better) | 0.90 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | −2.86 | −13.87 |
| Interest coverage | 3.8× (better) | 1.0× |
| Current ratio | 1.74 (better) | 1.68 |
| Altman Z-score | 4.60 (better) | 4.08 |
| Piotroski F-score | 5 (better) | 4 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 0.64% | – |
| Payout ratio | 33.6% | – |
| Years of dividend growth | 0 | – |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 7.8% | – |
| Buyback yield | 0.30% | 4.7% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 0.94% | 4.7% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 98.6% | 108% |
| Held by insiders | 0.33% | 1.5% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | $150K (better) | −$3.5M |
| Superinvestors holding | 2 | 2 |
| Short interest, % of float | 2.3% | 5.6% |
Go deeper
- HUM stock overview
- HUM income statement
- HUM valuation and score
- MOH stock overview
- MOH income statement
- MOH valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.