Humana vs Molina Healthcare
HUM 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 HUM and MOH compare
Humana is the larger company, worth 4.9 times as much as Molina Healthcare ($53.6B against $10.9B).
Humana grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (22.0% versus −0.95% for Molina Healthcare).
Humana keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 0.81% compared with −0.11% at Molina Healthcare.
Humana pays a dividend yielding 0.59%; Molina Healthcare does not pay one.
Humana scores higher on the StockData Score (10 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 | HUM | MOH |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $53.6B | $10.9B |
| Share price | $446.31 | $209.25 |
| Change, 1 year | 87.2% | 48.5% |
| Change, 5 years | 2.6% | −29.8% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.45 | 0.25 |
| Employees | 67K | 19K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 10 (better) | 5 |
| Valuation score | 1 | 1 |
| Growth score | 2 | 2 |
| Performance score | 1 (better) | 0 |
| Health score | 2 | 2 |
| Dividend score | 4 (better) | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 43.3× | – |
| P/S | 0.3× | 0.2× (better) |
| P/B | 2.8× | 2.6× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 13.6× (better) | 18.4× |
| P/FCF | 17.1× (better) | 45.9× |
| FCF yield | 5.9% (better) | 2.2% |
| Fair value | $298.11 | – |
| Margin of safety | −49.7% | – |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 22.0% (better) | −0.95% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 10.9% | 18.5% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −3.5% (better) | −105% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −3.6% (better) | −106% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | −17.2% | −4.5% (better) |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | – | 12.6% |
| Operating margin | 1.5% (better) | 0.39% |
| Net margin | 0.81% (better) | −0.11% |
| FCF margin | 2.0% (better) | 0.54% |
| Return on equity | 6.7% (better) | −1.2% |
| Return on invested capital | 23.2% | – |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.66 (better) | 0.91 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | −4.17 | −14.44 |
| Interest coverage | 3.2× (better) | 0.8× |
| Current ratio | 1.65 | 1.69 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 4.74 (better) | 4.15 |
| Piotroski F-score | 5 (better) | 4 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 0.59% | – |
| Payout ratio | 34.4% | – |
| Years of dividend growth | 0 | – |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 7.8% | – |
| Buyback yield | 0.28% (better) | 0.00% |
| Shareholder yield | 0.88% (better) | 0.00% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 98.6% | 108% |
| Held by insiders | 0.33% | 1.5% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | $150K (better) | −$3.4M |
| Superinvestors holding | 2 | 2 |
| Short interest, % of float | 2.3% | 5.7% |
Go deeper
- HUM stock overview
- HUM income statement
- HUM valuation and score
- MOH stock overview
- MOH income statement
- MOH valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.