Marsh & McLennan Companies vs Willis Towers Watson
MRSH 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 MRSH and WTW compare
Marsh & McLennan Companies is the larger company, worth 3.2 times as much as Willis Towers Watson ($95.7B against $30.1B).
On earnings, Willis Towers Watson is cheaper: it trades at 19.7× trailing earnings, against 24.0× for Marsh & McLennan Companies.
Marsh & McLennan Companies grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (7.6% versus 4.8% for Willis Towers Watson).
Willis Towers Watson keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 15.2% compared with 14.2% at Marsh & McLennan Companies.
Both pay dividends: Marsh & McLennan Companies yields 1.9% and Willis Towers Watson 1.2%.
Willis Towers Watson scores higher on the StockData Score (18 against 13 for Marsh & McLennan Companies), 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 | MRSH | WTW |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $95.7B | $30.1B |
| Share price | $200.62 | $324.42 |
| Change, 1 year | 11.5% | 2.2% |
| Change, 5 years | 24.3% | 40.3% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.61 | 0.56 |
| Employees | 95K | 47K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 13 | 18 (better) |
| Valuation score | 3 | 5 (better) |
| Growth score | 1 | 2 (better) |
| Performance score | 3 | 4 (better) |
| Health score | 3 | 3 |
| Dividend score | 3 | 4 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 24.0× | 19.7× (better) |
| P/S | 3.4× | 2.9× (better) |
| P/B | – | 3.9× |
| EV/EBITDA | 17.8× | 15.4× (better) |
| P/FCF | 23.0× | 17.3× (better) |
| PEG | 2.04 | 0.90 (better) |
| FCF yield | 4.3% | 5.8% (better) |
| Fair value | – | $392.20 |
| Margin of safety | – | 17.3% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 7.6% (better) | 4.8% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 9.4% (better) | 2.4% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −2.1% (better) | −26.1% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 0.12% | – |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 16.4% (better) | 16.3% |
| Profitability | ||
| Operating margin | 21.4% | 22.0% (better) |
| Net margin | 14.2% | 15.2% (better) |
| FCF margin | 14.6% | 17.0% (better) |
| Return on equity | – | 20.2% |
| Return on invested capital | – | 15.4% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | – | 0.84 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 2.90 | 2.02 (better) |
| Interest coverage | 6.3× | 7.5× (better) |
| Current ratio | 1.09 | 1.10 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 2.81 (better) | 1.43 |
| Piotroski F-score | 5 | 7 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 1.9% (better) | 1.2% |
| Payout ratio | 44.5% | 22.8% |
| Years of dividend growth | 3 | 9 (better) |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | – | 6.0% |
| Buyback yield | 3.2% | 4.4% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 5.0% | 5.6% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 92.0% | 103% |
| Held by insiders | 0.10% | 0.41% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$18.9M | $911K (better) |
| Superinvestors holding | 2 | 2 |
| Short interest, % of float | 1.3% | 3.2% |
Go deeper
- MRSH stock overview
- MRSH income statement
- MRSH 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.