Labcorp vs RadNet
LH and RDNT 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 RDNT compare
Labcorp is the larger company, worth 5.2 times as much as RadNet ($29.9B against $5.8B).
RadNet grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (18.9% versus 6.0% for Labcorp).
Labcorp keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 6.9% compared with −0.93% at RadNet.
Labcorp pays a dividend yielding 0.78%; RadNet does not pay one.
Labcorp scores higher on the StockData Score (11 against 7 for RadNet), 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 | RDNT |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $29.9B | $5.8B |
| Share price | $368.16 | $73.49 |
| Change, 1 year | 41.8% | −6.8% |
| Change, 5 years | 34.0% | 112% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.61 | 1.18 |
| Employees | 71K | 76 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 11 (better) | 7 |
| Valuation score | 0 | 0 |
| Growth score | 2 | 2 |
| Performance score | 2 | 2 |
| Health score | 4 (better) | 3 |
| Dividend score | 3 (better) | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 30.2× | – |
| P/S | 2.0× (better) | 2.5× |
| P/B | 3.4× (better) | 5.3× |
| EV/EBITDA | 16.0× (better) | 27.6× |
| P/FCF | 23.2× | – |
| FCF yield | 4.3% | – |
| Fair value | $356.26 | $54.24 |
| Margin of safety | −3.3% (better) | −35.5% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 6.0% | 18.9% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | −0.04% | 13.7% (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) | 3.1% |
| Net margin | 6.9% (better) | −0.93% |
| FCF margin | 8.8% | – |
| Return on equity | 11.4% (better) | −2.1% |
| Return on invested capital | 8.6% (better) | 2.7% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.66 (better) | 1.22 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 2.53 | 2.51 (better) |
| Interest coverage | 6.5× (better) | 1.0× |
| Current ratio | 1.41 | 1.48 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 3.55 (better) | 1.87 |
| Piotroski F-score | 7 (better) | 3 |
| 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% | 104% |
| Held by insiders | 0.40% | 4.6% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$11.9M (better) | −$12.3M |
| Superinvestors holding | 1 | – |
| Short interest, % of float | 3.3% | 12.5% |
Go deeper
- LH stock overview
- LH income statement
- LH valuation and score
- RDNT stock overview
- RDNT income statement
- RDNT valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.