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 $233.06, signalling upside risk potential of 0.66%. On the other hand Brown & Brown has an analysts' consensus of $118.51 which suggests that it could grow by 5.74%. 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 0.847, which suggesting that the stock is 15.285% less volatile than S&P 500. In comparison Brown & Brown has a beta of 0.873, suggesting its less volatile than the S&P 500 by 12.658%.

Marsh & McLennan Companies has a quarterly dividend of $0.82 per share corresponding to a yield of 1.41%. Brown & Brown offers a yield of 0.52% 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 28.37x while Brown & Brown's PE ratio is 31.22x. 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 4.58x versus 6.63x 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 $233.06, signalling upside risk potential of 0.66%. 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 0.847, which suggesting that the stock is 15.285% less volatile than S&P 500. In comparison CorVel has a beta of 1.102, suggesting its more volatile than the S&P 500 by 10.208%.

Marsh & McLennan Companies has a quarterly dividend of $0.82 per share corresponding to a yield of 1.41%. 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 28.37x while CorVel's PE ratio is 61.30x. 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 4.58x versus 6.54x 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 $233.06, signalling upside risk potential of 0.66%. On the other hand Goosehead Insurance has an analysts' consensus of $116.11 which suggests that it could grow by 5.06%. 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 0.847, which suggesting that the stock is 15.285% less volatile than S&P 500. In comparison Goosehead Insurance has a beta of 1.449, suggesting its more volatile than the S&P 500 by 44.901%.

Marsh & McLennan Companies has a quarterly dividend of $0.82 per share corresponding to a yield of 1.41%. 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 28.37x while Goosehead Insurance's PE ratio is 92.87x. 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 4.58x versus 11.91x 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 $233.06, signalling upside risk potential of 0.66%. On the other hand Kingstone Companies has an analysts' consensus of $19.00 which suggests that it could grow by 14.73%. 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 0.847, which suggesting that the stock is 15.285% less volatile than S&P 500. In comparison Kingstone Companies has a beta of 0.605, suggesting its less volatile than the S&P 500 by 39.519%.

Marsh & McLennan Companies has a quarterly dividend of $0.82 per share corresponding to a yield of 1.41%. 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 28.37x while Kingstone Companies's PE ratio is 10.42x. 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 4.58x versus 1.27x for Kingstone Companies. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.