Labcorp vs Natera
LH and NTRA side by side, both in health services. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How LH and NTRA compare
Natera is the larger company, worth 2.0 times as much as Labcorp ($59.7B against $29.9B).
Natera grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (37.8% versus 6.0% for Labcorp).
Labcorp keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 6.9% compared with −7.1% at Natera.
Labcorp pays a dividend yielding 0.78%; Natera does not pay one.
Labcorp scores higher on the StockData Score (11 against 10 for Natera), 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 | LH | NTRA |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $29.9B | $59.7B |
| Share price | $368.16 | $414.30 |
| Change, 1 year | 41.8% | 115% |
| Change, 5 years | 34.0% | 257% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.61 | 1.34 |
| Employees | 71K | 6,140 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 11 (better) | 10 |
| Valuation score | 0 | 0 |
| Growth score | 2 | 3 (better) |
| Performance score | 2 | 2 |
| Health score | 4 | 5 (better) |
| Dividend score | 3 (better) | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 30.2× | – |
| P/S | 2.0× (better) | 22.1× |
| P/B | 3.4× (better) | 32.8× |
| EV/EBITDA | 16.0× | – |
| P/FCF | 23.2× (better) | 709× |
| FCF yield | 4.3% (better) | 0.14% |
| Fair value | $356.26 | $124.09 |
| Margin of safety | −3.3% (better) | −234% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 6.0% | 37.8% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | −0.04% | 42.6% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 17.4% | – |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 19.6% | – |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | −8.0% | – |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 29.0% | – |
| Operating margin | 10.3% (better) | −10.7% |
| Net margin | 6.9% (better) | −7.1% |
| FCF margin | 8.8% (better) | 3.1% |
| Return on equity | 11.4% (better) | −12.5% |
| Return on invested capital | 8.6% (better) | −40.8% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.66 | 0.04 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 2.53 | – |
| Interest coverage | 6.5× (better) | −75.9× |
| Current ratio | 1.41 | 3.00 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 3.55 | 42.48 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 7 (better) | 5 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 0.78% | – |
| Payout ratio | 23.6% | – |
| Years of dividend growth | 0 | – |
| Buyback yield | 2.3% | – |
| Shareholder yield | 3.0% (better) | 0.00% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 98.0% | 95.2% |
| Held by insiders | 0.40% | 4.0% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$11.9M (better) | −$371M |
| Superinvestors holding | 1 | 3 (better) |
| Short interest, % of float | 3.3% | 4.6% |
Go deeper
- LH stock overview
- LH income statement
- LH valuation and score
- NTRA stock overview
- NTRA income statement
- NTRA valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.