MMC Quote, Financials, Valuation and Earnings

Brown & Brown has a net margin of 13.11% compared to Marsh & McLennan Companies's net margin of 19.73%. Marsh & McLennan Companies's return on equity of 31.46% beat Brown & Brown's return on equity of 18.1%.

Marsh & McLennan Companies has a consensus price target of $231.78, signalling upside risk potential of 9.67%. On the other hand Brown & Brown has an analysts' consensus of $115.28 which suggests that it could grow by 12.43%. Given that Brown & Brown has higher upside potential than Marsh & McLennan Companies, analysts believe Brown & Brown is more attractive than Marsh & McLennan Companies.

Marsh & McLennan Companies has a beta of 0.959, which suggesting that the stock is 4.147% less volatile than S&P 500. In comparison Brown & Brown has a beta of 0.854, suggesting its less volatile than the S&P 500 by 14.568%.

Marsh & McLennan Companies has a quarterly dividend of $0.82 per share corresponding to a yield of 1.44%. Brown & Brown offers a yield of 0.53% to investors and pays a quarterly dividend of $0.15 per share. Marsh & McLennan Companies pays 34.56% 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 $5.7B, which are larger than Brown & Brown quarterly revenues of $1.2B. Marsh & McLennan Companies's net income of $747M is higher than Brown & Brown's net income of $234M. Notably, Marsh & McLennan Companies's price-to-earnings ratio is 26.03x while Brown & Brown's PE ratio is 27.94x. 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 4.39x versus 6.37x for Brown & Brown. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.

CorVel has a net margin of 13.11% compared to Marsh & McLennan Companies's net margin of 10.43%. Marsh & McLennan Companies's return on equity of 31.46% beat CorVel's return on equity of 32.6%.

Marsh & McLennan Companies has a consensus price target of $231.78, signalling upside risk potential of 9.67%. 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 0.959, which suggesting that the stock is 4.147% less volatile than S&P 500. In comparison CorVel has a beta of 1.155, suggesting its more volatile than the S&P 500 by 15.453%.

Marsh & McLennan Companies has a quarterly dividend of $0.82 per share corresponding to a yield of 1.44%. CorVel offers a yield of 0% to investors and pays a quarterly dividend of $0.00 per share. Marsh & McLennan Companies pays 34.56% 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 $5.7B, which are larger than CorVel quarterly revenues of $224.4M. Marsh & McLennan Companies's net income of $747M is higher than CorVel's net income of $23.4M. Notably, Marsh & McLennan Companies's price-to-earnings ratio is 26.03x while CorVel's PE ratio is 69.77x. 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 4.39x versus 6.73x for CorVel. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.

eHealth has a net margin of 13.11% compared to Marsh & McLennan Companies's net margin of -72.72%. Marsh & McLennan Companies's return on equity of 31.46% beat eHealth's return on equity of -5.64%.

Marsh & McLennan Companies has a consensus price target of $231.78, signalling upside risk potential of 9.67%. On the other hand eHealth has an analysts' consensus of $7.00 which suggests that it could fall by -25.58%. Given that Marsh & McLennan Companies has higher upside potential than eHealth, analysts believe Marsh & McLennan Companies is more attractive than eHealth.

Marsh & McLennan Companies has a beta of 0.959, which suggesting that the stock is 4.147% less volatile than S&P 500. In comparison eHealth has a beta of 0.311, suggesting its less volatile than the S&P 500 by 68.95%.

Marsh & McLennan Companies has a quarterly dividend of $0.82 per share corresponding to a yield of 1.44%. eHealth offers a yield of 0% to investors and pays a quarterly dividend of $0.00 per share. Marsh & McLennan Companies pays 34.56% of its earnings as a dividend. eHealth pays out -12.52% 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 $5.7B, which are larger than eHealth quarterly revenues of $58.4M. Marsh & McLennan Companies's net income of $747M is higher than eHealth's net income of -$42.5M. Notably, Marsh & McLennan Companies's price-to-earnings ratio is 26.03x 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 4.39x versus 0.62x for eHealth. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.

Kingstone Companies has a net margin of 13.11% compared to Marsh & McLennan Companies's net margin of 17.12%. Marsh & McLennan Companies's return on equity of 31.46% beat Kingstone Companies's return on equity of 40.22%.

Marsh & McLennan Companies has a consensus price target of $231.78, signalling upside risk potential of 9.67%. On the other hand Kingstone Companies has an analysts' consensus of -- which suggests that it could grow by 15.8%. 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 0.959, which suggesting that the stock is 4.147% less volatile than S&P 500. In comparison Kingstone Companies has a beta of 0.738, suggesting its less volatile than the S&P 500 by 26.211%.

Marsh & McLennan Companies has a quarterly dividend of $0.82 per share corresponding to a yield of 1.44%. Kingstone Companies offers a yield of 0% to investors and pays a quarterly dividend of $0.00 per share. Marsh & McLennan Companies pays 34.56% 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 $5.7B, which are larger than Kingstone Companies quarterly revenues of $40.8M. Marsh & McLennan Companies's net income of $747M is higher than Kingstone Companies's net income of $7M. Notably, Marsh & McLennan Companies's price-to-earnings ratio is 26.03x while Kingstone Companies's PE ratio is 11.21x. 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 4.39x versus 1.16x for Kingstone Companies. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.