Cigna vs Molina Healthcare
CI and MOH 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 MOH compare
Cigna is the larger company, worth 7.3 times as much as Molina Healthcare ($79.7B against $10.9B).
Cigna grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (6.8% versus −0.95% for Molina Healthcare).
Cigna keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 2.1% compared with −0.11% at Molina Healthcare.
Cigna pays a dividend yielding 2.1%; Molina Healthcare does not pay one.
Cigna scores higher on the StockData Score (16 against 5 for Molina 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 | CI | MOH |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $79.7B | $10.9B |
| Share price | $301.45 | $209.25 |
| Change, 1 year | 16.8% | 48.5% |
| Change, 5 years | 43.2% | −29.8% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.34 | 0.25 |
| Employees | 68K | 19K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 16 (better) | 5 |
| Valuation score | 6 (better) | 1 |
| Growth score | 2 | 2 |
| Performance score | 3 (better) | 0 |
| Health score | 2 | 2 |
| Dividend score | 3 (better) | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 13.3× | – |
| P/S | 0.3× | 0.2× (better) |
| P/B | 1.8× (better) | 2.6× |
| EV/EBITDA | 8.2× (better) | 18.4× |
| P/FCF | – | 45.9× |
| PEG | 11.23 | – |
| FCF yield | – | 2.2% |
| Fair value | $383.88 | – |
| Margin of safety | 21.5% | – |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 6.8% (better) | −0.95% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 11.4% | 18.5% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | – | −105% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −0.04% (better) | −106% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | −0.69% (better) | −4.5% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 20.7% (better) | 12.6% |
| Operating margin | 3.4% (better) | 0.39% |
| Net margin | 2.1% (better) | −0.11% |
| FCF margin | – | 0.54% |
| Return on equity | 14.1% (better) | −1.2% |
| Return on invested capital | 11.4% | – |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.72 (better) | 0.91 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 1.88 (better) | −14.44 |
| Interest coverage | 7.1× (better) | 0.8× |
| Current ratio | 0.84 | 1.69 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 2.83 | 4.15 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 7 (better) | 4 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 2.1% | – |
| Payout ratio | 27.2% | – |
| Years of dividend growth | 5 | – |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 173% | – |
| Buyback yield | 1.7% (better) | 0.00% |
| Shareholder yield | 3.7% (better) | 0.00% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 89.9% | 108% |
| Held by insiders | 0.41% | 1.5% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$66.8M | −$3.4M (better) |
| Superinvestors holding | 4 (better) | 2 |
| Short interest, % of float | 2.4% | 5.7% |
Go deeper
- CI stock overview
- CI income statement
- CI valuation and score
- MOH stock overview
- MOH income statement
- MOH valuation and score
Other comparisons
- CAH vs CI
- CI vs CNC
- CI vs COR
- CI vs CVS
- CI vs ELV
- CI vs HUM
- CI vs UNH
- CNC vs MOH
- ELV vs MOH
- HUM vs MOH
- MOH vs OSCR
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.