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 2.03%. On the other hand Brown & Brown has an analysts' consensus of $119.31 which suggests that it could grow by 6.97%. 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 1.43%. Brown & Brown offers a yield of 0.5% 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 27.99x while Brown & Brown's PE ratio is 31.07x. 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 4.52x versus 6.60x 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 10.43%. Marsh & McLennan Companies's return on equity of 29.77% beat CorVel's return on equity of 33.19%.

Marsh & McLennan Companies has a consensus price target of $233.06, signalling upside risk potential of 2.03%. 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 0.847, 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 1.43%. 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 $228M. Marsh & McLennan Companies's net income of $1.4B is higher than CorVel's net income of $23.8M. Notably, Marsh & McLennan Companies's price-to-earnings ratio is 27.99x while CorVel's PE ratio is 66.01x. 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 4.52x versus 6.70x 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 2.03%. On the other hand Goosehead Insurance has an analysts' consensus of $116.11 which suggests that it could grow by 13.6%. 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 1.43%. 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 27.99x while Goosehead Insurance's PE ratio is 85.89x. 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 4.52x versus 11.01x 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 12.92%. Marsh & McLennan Companies's return on equity of 29.77% beat Kingstone Companies's return on equity of 38.66%.

Marsh & McLennan Companies has a consensus price target of $233.06, signalling upside risk potential of 2.03%. On the other hand Kingstone Companies has an analysts' consensus of $19.00 which suggests that it could grow by 4.45%. 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 1.43%. 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 $42.1M. Marsh & McLennan Companies's net income of $1.4B is higher than Kingstone Companies's net income of $5.4M. Notably, Marsh & McLennan Companies's price-to-earnings ratio is 27.99x while Kingstone Companies's PE ratio is 12.63x. 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 4.52x versus 1.45x for Kingstone Companies. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.