Cigna vs Humana
CI and HUM side by side, both in accident and health insurance and medical. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How CI and HUM compare
Cigna is the larger company, worth 1.5 times as much as Humana ($78.3B against $53.3B).
On earnings, Cigna is cheaper: it trades at 13.1× trailing earnings, against 43.0× for Humana.
Humana grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (22.0% versus 6.8% for Cigna).
Cigna keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 2.1% compared with 0.81% at Humana.
Both pay dividends: Cigna yields 2.1% and Humana 0.60%.
Cigna scores higher on the StockData Score (15 against 10 for Humana), 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 | CI | HUM |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $78.3B | $53.3B |
| Share price | $296.27 | $443.68 |
| Change, 1 year | 10.5% | 82.2% |
| Change, 5 years | 40.7% | 2.0% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.34 | 0.45 |
| Employees | 68K | 67K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 15 (better) | 10 |
| Valuation score | 6 (better) | 1 |
| Growth score | 1 | 2 (better) |
| Performance score | 3 (better) | 1 |
| Health score | 2 | 2 |
| Dividend score | 3 | 4 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 13.1× (better) | 43.0× |
| P/S | 0.3× (better) | 0.3× |
| P/B | 1.8× (better) | 2.8× |
| EV/EBITDA | 8.1× (better) | 13.5× |
| P/FCF | – | 17.0× |
| PEG | 11.04 | – |
| FCF yield | – | 5.9% |
| Fair value | $382.90 | $297.05 |
| Margin of safety | 22.6% (better) | −49.4% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 6.8% | 22.0% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 11.4% (better) | 10.9% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | – | −3.5% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −0.04% (better) | −3.6% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | −0.69% (better) | −17.2% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 20.7% | – |
| Operating margin | 3.4% (better) | 1.5% |
| Net margin | 2.1% (better) | 0.81% |
| FCF margin | – | 2.0% |
| Return on equity | 14.1% (better) | 6.7% |
| Return on invested capital | 11.4% | 23.2% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.72 | 0.66 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 1.88 (better) | −4.17 |
| Interest coverage | 7.1× (better) | 3.2× |
| Current ratio | 0.84 | 1.65 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 2.82 | 4.74 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 7 (better) | 5 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 2.1% (better) | 0.60% |
| Payout ratio | 27.2% | 34.4% |
| Years of dividend growth | 5 (better) | 0 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 173% (better) | 7.8% |
| Buyback yield | 1.7% (better) | 0.29% |
| Shareholder yield | 3.8% (better) | 0.88% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 89.9% | 98.6% |
| Held by insiders | 0.41% | 0.33% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$66.8M | $150K (better) |
| Superinvestors holding | 4 (better) | 2 |
| Short interest, % of float | 2.4% | 2.3% |
Go deeper
- CI stock overview
- CI income statement
- CI valuation and score
- HUM stock overview
- HUM income statement
- HUM valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.