HCA Healthcare vs Universal Health Services
HCA 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 HCA and UHS compare
HCA Healthcare is the larger company, worth 9.1 times as much as Universal Health Services ($104B against $11.4B).
On earnings, Universal Health Services is cheaper: it trades at 8.1× trailing earnings, against 16.5× for HCA Healthcare.
Universal Health Services grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (8.0% versus 5.8% for HCA Healthcare).
HCA Healthcare keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 8.6% compared with 8.0% at Universal Health Services.
Both pay dividends: HCA Healthcare yields 0.61% and Universal Health Services 0.41%.
Universal Health Services scores higher on the StockData Score (21 against 9 for HCA 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 | HCA | UHS |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $104B | $11.4B |
| Share price | $499.05 | $194.07 |
| Change, 1 year | 5.4% | −15.0% |
| Change, 5 years | 109% | 56.5% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.73 | 0.77 |
| Employees | 320K | 102K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 9 | 21 (better) |
| Valuation score | 1 | 6 (better) |
| Growth score | 2 | 2 |
| Performance score | 2 | 6 (better) |
| Health score | 1 | 3 (better) |
| Dividend score | 3 | 4 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 16.5× | 8.1× (better) |
| P/S | 1.3× | 0.6× (better) |
| P/B | – | 1.5× |
| EV/EBITDA | 9.9× | 6.4× (better) |
| P/FCF | 17.5× | 10.3× (better) |
| PEG | 1.19 | 0.22 (better) |
| FCF yield | 5.7% | 9.8% (better) |
| Fair value | $492.25 | $331.49 |
| Margin of safety | −1.4% | 41.5% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 5.8% | 8.0% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 8.0% | 8.5% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 6.8% (better) | 6.3% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 16.7% (better) | 13.6% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 21.0% (better) | 16.0% |
| Profitability | ||
| Operating margin | – | 10.8% |
| Net margin | 8.6% (better) | 8.0% |
| FCF margin | 7.6% (better) | 6.1% |
| Return on equity | – | 19.8% |
| Return on invested capital | – | 12.2% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | – | 0.75 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 3.11 | 2.09 (better) |
| Interest coverage | – | 11.3× |
| Current ratio | 0.82 | 1.37 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 1.92 | 2.24 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 6 | 7 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 0.61% (better) | 0.41% |
| Payout ratio | 10.1% | 3.3% |
| Years of dividend growth | 5 (better) | 0 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 46.3% | – |
| Buyback yield | 8.8% | 9.3% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 9.4% | 9.7% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 64.4% | 96.4% |
| Held by insiders | 46.0% | 17.2% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$47.5M | −$128K (better) |
| Superinvestors holding | 3 | – |
| Short interest, % of float | 4.3% | 5.2% |
Go deeper
- HCA stock overview
- HCA income statement
- HCA 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.