MMC Quote, Financials, Valuation and Earnings

Brown & Brown has a net margin of 19.56% compared to Marsh & McLennan Companies's net margin of 23.9%. Marsh & McLennan Companies's return on equity of 29.77% beat Brown & Brown's return on equity of 16.34%.

Marsh & McLennan Companies has a consensus price target of $231.12, signalling upside risk potential of 9.03%. On the other hand Brown & Brown has an analysts' consensus of $120.18 which suggests that it could grow by 14.49%. 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 0.796, which suggesting that the stock is 20.374% less volatile than S&P 500. In comparison Brown & Brown has a beta of 0.819, suggesting its less volatile than the S&P 500 by 18.067%.

Marsh & McLennan Companies has a quarterly dividend of $0.82 per share corresponding to a yield of 1.54%. Brown & Brown offers a yield of 0.55% 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 $7.1B, which are larger than Brown & Brown quarterly revenues of $1.4B. Marsh & McLennan Companies's net income of $1.4B is higher than Brown & Brown's net income of $331M. Notably, Marsh & McLennan Companies's price-to-earnings ratio is 25.98x while Brown & Brown's PE ratio is 29.24x. 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 4.20x versus 6.21x for Brown & Brown. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.

CorVel has a net margin of 19.56% compared to Marsh & McLennan Companies's net margin of 11.41%. Marsh & McLennan Companies's return on equity of 29.77% beat CorVel's return on equity of 33.58%.

Marsh & McLennan Companies has a consensus price target of $231.12, signalling upside risk potential of 9.03%. 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 0.796, which suggesting that the stock is 20.374% less volatile than S&P 500. In comparison CorVel has a beta of 0.978, suggesting its less volatile than the S&P 500 by 2.168%.

Marsh & McLennan Companies has a quarterly dividend of $0.82 per share corresponding to a yield of 1.54%. 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 $7.1B, which are larger than CorVel quarterly revenues of $231.5M. Marsh & McLennan Companies's net income of $1.4B is higher than CorVel's net income of $26.4M. Notably, Marsh & McLennan Companies's price-to-earnings ratio is 25.98x while CorVel's PE ratio is 52.86x. 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 4.20x versus 5.64x for CorVel. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.

Goosehead Insurance has a net margin of 19.56% compared to Marsh & McLennan Companies's net margin of 3.1%. Marsh & McLennan Companies's return on equity of 29.77% beat Goosehead Insurance's return on equity of 228.38%.

Marsh & McLennan Companies has a consensus price target of $231.12, signalling upside risk potential of 9.03%. On the other hand Goosehead Insurance has an analysts' consensus of $116.44 which suggests that it could grow by 15.31%. Given that Goosehead Insurance has higher upside potential than Marsh & McLennan Companies, analysts believe Goosehead Insurance is more attractive than Marsh & McLennan Companies.

Marsh & McLennan Companies has a beta of 0.796, which suggesting that the stock is 20.374% less volatile than S&P 500. In comparison Goosehead Insurance has a beta of 1.418, suggesting its more volatile than the S&P 500 by 41.779%.

Marsh & McLennan Companies has a quarterly dividend of $0.82 per share corresponding to a yield of 1.54%. Goosehead Insurance offers a yield of 0% to investors and pays a quarterly dividend of $5.91 per share. Marsh & McLennan Companies pays 37.27% of its earnings as a dividend. Goosehead Insurance 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 $7.1B, which are larger than Goosehead Insurance quarterly revenues of $75.6M. Marsh & McLennan Companies's net income of $1.4B is higher than Goosehead Insurance's net income of $2.3M. Notably, Marsh & McLennan Companies's price-to-earnings ratio is 25.98x while Goosehead Insurance's PE ratio is 84.86x. 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 4.20x versus 10.88x for Goosehead Insurance. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.

Kingstone Companies has a net margin of 19.56% compared to Marsh & McLennan Companies's net margin of 7.69%. Marsh & McLennan Companies's return on equity of 29.77% beat Kingstone Companies's return on equity of 36.5%.

Marsh & McLennan Companies has a consensus price target of $231.12, signalling upside risk potential of 9.03%. On the other hand Kingstone Companies has an analysts' consensus of $22.00 which suggests that it could grow by 47.75%. 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 0.796, which suggesting that the stock is 20.374% less volatile than S&P 500. In comparison Kingstone Companies has a beta of 0.571, suggesting its less volatile than the S&P 500 by 42.923%.

Marsh & McLennan Companies has a quarterly dividend of $0.82 per share corresponding to a yield of 1.54%. 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 $7.1B, which are larger than Kingstone Companies quarterly revenues of $50.5M. Marsh & McLennan Companies's net income of $1.4B is higher than Kingstone Companies's net income of $3.9M. Notably, Marsh & McLennan Companies's price-to-earnings ratio is 25.98x while Kingstone Companies's PE ratio is 9.36x. 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 4.20x versus 1.14x for Kingstone Companies. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.