Surgery Partners vs Universal Health Services
SGRY and UHS side by side, both in health services. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How SGRY and UHS compare
Universal Health Services is the larger company, worth 3.4 times as much as Surgery Partners ($10.4B against $3.0B).
Universal Health Services grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (10.0% versus 4.0% for Surgery Partners).
Universal Health Services keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 8.4% compared with −2.6% at Surgery Partners.
Universal Health Services pays a dividend yielding 0.45%; Surgery Partners does not pay one.
Universal Health Services scores higher on the StockData Score (22 against 6 for Surgery Partners), 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 | SGRY | UHS |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $3.0B | $10.4B |
| Share price | $23.21 | $176.05 |
| Change, 1 year | 2.0% | −21.9% |
| Change, 5 years | −53.7% | 35.5% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.64 | 0.79 |
| Employees | 16K | 102K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 6 | 22 (better) |
| Valuation score | 2 | 6 (better) |
| Growth score | 0 | 3 (better) |
| Performance score | 2 | 6 (better) |
| Health score | 2 | 3 (better) |
| Dividend score | 0 | 4 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | – | 7.2× |
| P/S | 0.9× | 0.6× (better) |
| P/B | 1.8× | 1.4× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 14.3× | 5.6× (better) |
| P/FCF | 16.2× | 12.3× (better) |
| PEG | – | 0.20 |
| FCF yield | 6.2% | 8.1% (better) |
| Fair value | $21.97 | $340.27 |
| Margin of safety | −5.7% | 48.3% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 4.0% | 10.0% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 12.2% (better) | 8.5% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | – | 21.0% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | – | 29.3% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | – | 16.0% |
| Profitability | ||
| Operating margin | 11.4% (better) | 11.4% |
| Net margin | −2.6% | 8.4% (better) |
| FCF margin | 5.6% (better) | 4.7% |
| Return on equity | −5.2% | 21.0% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | 5.9% | 13.3% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 2.25 | 0.65 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 6.30 | 1.75 (better) |
| Interest coverage | – | 13.1× |
| Current ratio | 1.95 (better) | 1.12 |
| Altman Z-score | 0.87 | 2.34 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 4 | 7 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | – | 0.45% |
| Payout ratio | – | 3.2% |
| Years of dividend growth | – | 0 |
| Buyback yield | – | 10.2% |
| Shareholder yield | 0.00% | 10.6% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 121% | 96.4% |
| Held by insiders | 85.9% | 17.1% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$979K (better) | −$980K |
| Superinvestors holding | 1 | – |
| Short interest, % of float | 77.9% | 5.2% |
Go deeper
- SGRY stock overview
- SGRY income statement
- SGRY valuation and score
- UHS stock overview
- UHS income statement
- UHS valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.