MMC Quote, Financials, Valuation and Earnings

Brown & Brown has a net margin of 12.99% compared to Marsh & McLennan Companies's net margin of 19.28%. Marsh & McLennan Companies's return on equity of 30.77% beat Brown & Brown's return on equity of 16.39%.

Marsh & McLennan Companies has a consensus price target of $235.65, signalling downside risk potential of -2.78%. On the other hand Brown & Brown has an analysts' consensus of $115.97 which suggests that it could fall by -5.66%. Given that Brown & Brown has more downside risk than Marsh & McLennan Companies, analysts believe Marsh & McLennan Companies is more attractive than Brown & Brown.

Marsh & McLennan Companies has a beta of 0.947, which suggesting that the stock is 5.279% less volatile than S&P 500. In comparison Brown & Brown has a beta of 0.856, suggesting its less volatile than the S&P 500 by 14.448%.

Marsh & McLennan Companies has a quarterly dividend of $0.82 per share corresponding to a yield of 1.3%. Brown & Brown offers a yield of 0.46% to investors and pays a quarterly dividend of $0.15 per share. Marsh & McLennan Companies pays 37.27% of its earnings as a dividend. Brown & Brown pays out 15.51% of its earnings as a dividend. Both of these payout ratios are sufficient to cover dividend payouts with earnings for the foreseeable future.

Marsh & McLennan Companies quarterly revenues are $6.1B, which are larger than Brown & Brown quarterly revenues of $1.1B. Marsh & McLennan Companies's net income of $788M is higher than Brown & Brown's net income of $210M. Notably, Marsh & McLennan Companies's price-to-earnings ratio is 29.60x while Brown & Brown's PE ratio is 35.53x. Generally a lower price-to-earnings ratio signals a stock is trading at a lower multiple of earnings and is a better value. Another key metric is the price-to-sales ratio, which for Marsh & McLennan Companies is 4.92x versus 7.49x for Brown & Brown. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.

CorVel has a net margin of 12.99% compared to Marsh & McLennan Companies's net margin of 10.43%. Marsh & McLennan Companies's return on equity of 30.77% beat CorVel's return on equity of 33.19%.

Marsh & McLennan Companies has a consensus price target of $235.65, signalling downside risk potential of -2.78%. On the other hand CorVel has an analysts' consensus of -- which suggests that it could fall by --. Given that Marsh & McLennan Companies has higher upside potential than CorVel, analysts believe Marsh & McLennan Companies is more attractive than CorVel.

Marsh & McLennan Companies has a beta of 0.947, which suggesting that the stock is 5.279% less volatile than S&P 500. In comparison CorVel has a beta of 1.062, suggesting its more volatile than the S&P 500 by 6.229%.

Marsh & McLennan Companies has a quarterly dividend of $0.82 per share corresponding to a yield of 1.3%. CorVel offers a yield of 0% to investors and pays a quarterly dividend of $0.00 per share. Marsh & McLennan Companies pays 37.27% of its earnings as a dividend. CorVel pays out -- of its earnings as a dividend. Marsh & McLennan Companies's payout ratio is sufficient to cover dividend payouts with earnings for the foreseeable future.

Marsh & McLennan Companies quarterly revenues are $6.1B, which are larger than CorVel quarterly revenues of $228M. Marsh & McLennan Companies's net income of $788M is higher than CorVel's net income of $23.8M. Notably, Marsh & McLennan Companies's price-to-earnings ratio is 29.60x while CorVel's PE ratio is 65.51x. Generally a lower price-to-earnings ratio signals a stock is trading at a lower multiple of earnings and is a better value. Another key metric is the price-to-sales ratio, which for Marsh & McLennan Companies is 4.92x versus 6.65x for CorVel. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.

eHealth has a net margin of 12.99% compared to Marsh & McLennan Companies's net margin of 30.93%. Marsh & McLennan Companies's return on equity of 30.77% beat eHealth's return on equity of 1.6%.

Marsh & McLennan Companies has a consensus price target of $235.65, signalling downside risk potential of -2.78%. On the other hand eHealth has an analysts' consensus of $10.63 which suggests that it could grow by 61.47%. Given that eHealth has higher upside potential than Marsh & McLennan Companies, analysts believe eHealth is more attractive than Marsh & McLennan Companies.

Marsh & McLennan Companies has a beta of 0.947, which suggesting that the stock is 5.279% less volatile than S&P 500. In comparison eHealth has a beta of 0.439, suggesting its less volatile than the S&P 500 by 56.128%.

Marsh & McLennan Companies has a quarterly dividend of $0.82 per share corresponding to a yield of 1.3%. eHealth offers a yield of 0% to investors and pays a quarterly dividend of $0.00 per share. Marsh & McLennan Companies pays 37.27% of its earnings as a dividend. eHealth pays out 55.3% of its earnings as a dividend. Both of these payout ratios are sufficient to cover dividend payouts with earnings for the foreseeable future.

Marsh & McLennan Companies quarterly revenues are $6.1B, which are larger than eHealth quarterly revenues of $315.2M. Marsh & McLennan Companies's net income of $788M is higher than eHealth's net income of $97.5M. Notably, Marsh & McLennan Companies's price-to-earnings ratio is 29.60x while eHealth's PE ratio is --. Generally a lower price-to-earnings ratio signals a stock is trading at a lower multiple of earnings and is a better value. Another key metric is the price-to-sales ratio, which for Marsh & McLennan Companies is 4.92x versus 0.36x for eHealth. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.

Kingstone Companies has a net margin of 12.99% compared to Marsh & McLennan Companies's net margin of 12.92%. Marsh & McLennan Companies's return on equity of 30.77% beat Kingstone Companies's return on equity of 38.66%.

Marsh & McLennan Companies has a consensus price target of $235.65, signalling downside risk potential of -2.78%. On the other hand Kingstone Companies has an analysts' consensus of $19.00 which suggests that it could grow by 11.83%. Given that Kingstone Companies has higher upside potential than Marsh & McLennan Companies, analysts believe Kingstone Companies is more attractive than Marsh & McLennan Companies.

Marsh & McLennan Companies has a beta of 0.947, which suggesting that the stock is 5.279% less volatile than S&P 500. In comparison Kingstone Companies has a beta of 0.715, suggesting its less volatile than the S&P 500 by 28.504%.

Marsh & McLennan Companies has a quarterly dividend of $0.82 per share corresponding to a yield of 1.3%. Kingstone Companies offers a yield of 0% to investors and pays a quarterly dividend of $0.00 per share. Marsh & McLennan Companies pays 37.27% of its earnings as a dividend. Kingstone Companies pays out -- of its earnings as a dividend. Marsh & McLennan Companies's payout ratio is sufficient to cover dividend payouts with earnings for the foreseeable future.

Marsh & McLennan Companies quarterly revenues are $6.1B, which are larger than Kingstone Companies quarterly revenues of $42.1M. Marsh & McLennan Companies's net income of $788M is higher than Kingstone Companies's net income of $5.4M. Notably, Marsh & McLennan Companies's price-to-earnings ratio is 29.60x while Kingstone Companies's PE ratio is 11.80x. Generally a lower price-to-earnings ratio signals a stock is trading at a lower multiple of earnings and is a better value. Another key metric is the price-to-sales ratio, which for Marsh & McLennan Companies is 4.92x versus 1.35x for Kingstone Companies. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.