Tenet Healthcare vs Universal Health Services
THC 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 THC and UHS compare
Tenet Healthcare is the larger company, worth 2.1 times as much as Universal Health Services ($22.0B against $10.4B).
On earnings, Universal Health Services is cheaper: it trades at 7.2× trailing earnings, against 7.9× for Tenet Healthcare.
Universal Health Services grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (10.0% versus 6.2% for Tenet Healthcare).
Universal Health Services pays a dividend yielding 0.45%; Tenet Healthcare does not pay one.
Universal Health Services scores higher on the StockData Score (22 against 13 for Tenet 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 | THC | UHS |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $22.0B | $10.4B |
| Share price | $273.25 | $176.05 |
| Change, 1 year | 30.7% | −21.9% |
| Change, 5 years | 262% | 35.5% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.15 | 0.79 |
| Employees | 100K | 102K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 13 | 22 (better) |
| Valuation score | 5 | 6 (better) |
| Growth score | 3 | 3 |
| Performance score | 1 | 6 (better) |
| Health score | 4 (better) | 3 |
| Dividend score | 0 | 4 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 7.9× | 7.2× (better) |
| P/S | 1.0× | 0.6× (better) |
| P/B | 4.0× | 1.4× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 5.5× (better) | 5.6× |
| P/FCF | 6.6× (better) | 12.3× |
| PEG | 0.13 (better) | 0.20 |
| FCF yield | 15.1% (better) | 8.1% |
| Fair value | $449.89 | $340.27 |
| Margin of safety | 39.3% | 48.3% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 6.2% | 10.0% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 3.9% | 8.5% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | – | 21.0% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 136% (better) | 29.3% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 32.8% (better) | 16.0% |
| Profitability | ||
| Operating margin | 24.4% (better) | 11.4% |
| Net margin | – | 8.4% |
| FCF margin | 15.0% (better) | 4.7% |
| Return on equity | – | 21.0% |
| Return on invested capital | 28.2% (better) | 13.3% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 2.43 | 0.65 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 1.68 (better) | 1.75 |
| Interest coverage | 6.6× | 13.1× (better) |
| Current ratio | 1.58 (better) | 1.12 |
| Altman Z-score | 2.29 | 2.34 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | – | 7 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | – | 0.45% |
| Payout ratio | – | 3.2% |
| Years of dividend growth | – | 0 |
| Buyback yield | 8.2% | 10.2% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 8.2% | 10.6% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 100% | 96.4% |
| Held by insiders | 0.96% | 17.1% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$71.2M | −$980K (better) |
| Superinvestors holding | 2 | – |
| Short interest, % of float | 2.3% | 5.2% |
Go deeper
- THC stock overview
- THC income statement
- THC 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.