GDS vs COR

For growth investors, Cencora, Inc.

(COR) is the stronger pick with 9. 3% revenue growth year-over-year, versus 7. 7% for GDS Holdings Limited (GDS). Cencora, Inc. (COR) offers the better valuation at 32. 1x trailing P/E (14. 5x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate GDS Holdings Limited (GDS) a "Buy" — based on 20 analyst ratings — the highest consensus in this comparison. The "better buy" depends entirely on your goals: growth investors should weight revenue trajectory, value investors should weight P/E and PEG, and income investors should weight dividend yield and streak.

On trailing P/E, Cencora, Inc.

(COR) is the cheapest at 32. 1x versus GDS Holdings Limited at 70. 0x. On forward P/E, Cencora, Inc. is actually cheaper at 14. 5x.

Over the past 5 years, Cencora, Inc.

(COR) delivered a total return of +119. 9%, compared to -41. 4% for GDS Holdings Limited (GDS). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: GDS returned +319. 0% versus COR's +269. 7%. Past returns do not guarantee future results, and the stock with the higher historical return may already have its best growth priced in.

By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Cencora, Inc.

(COR) is the lower-risk stock at 0. 13β versus GDS Holdings Limited's 2. 14β — meaning GDS is approximately 1577% more volatile than COR relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, GDS Holdings Limited (GDS) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 171% versus 6% for Cencora, Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.

By revenue growth (latest reported year), Cencora, Inc.

(COR) is pulling ahead at 9. 3% versus 7. 7% for GDS Holdings Limited (GDS). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: GDS Holdings Limited grew EPS 193. 0% year-over-year, compared to 5. 7% for Cencora, Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, COR leads at 10. 4% annualised revenue growth. Higher growth typically commands a higher valuation multiple — check whether the premium P/E or P/S is justified by the growth rate using the PEG ratio.

GDS Holdings Limited (GDS) is the more profitable company, earning 8.

3% net margin versus 0. 5% for Cencora, Inc. — meaning it keeps 8. 3% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: GDS leads at 13. 2% versus 1. 1% for COR. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — GDS leads at 20. 5%, reflecting greater pricing power or product mix advantage. Stronger margins indicate durable pricing power, lower cost of revenue, or higher mix of software/services. They are one of the clearest signs of business quality.

On forward earnings alone, Cencora, Inc.

(COR) trades at 14. 5x forward P/E versus 15. 2x for GDS Holdings Limited — 0. 7x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for COR: 60. 0% to $409. 14.

In this comparison, COR (0.

9% yield) pays a dividend. GDS does not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.

For long-horizon retirement investors, Cencora, Inc.

(COR) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0. 13), 0. 9% yield, +269. 7% 10Y return). GDS Holdings Limited (GDS) carries a higher beta of 2. 14 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (COR: +269. 7%, GDS: +319. 0%), confirming both are viable long-term holds — but the lower-volatility option typically results in less emotional selling during corrections. Retirement portfolios generally favour predictability over maximum returns. Consult a financial advisor before making allocation decisions.

These companies operate in different sectors (GDS (Technology) and COR (Healthcare)), which means they face different economic cycles, regulatory environments, and macro sensitivities — making direct comparison nuanced.

COR pays a dividend while GDS does not, making them suitable for different income and tax situations. These fundamental differences mean investors should not choose between them on a single metric — the "better stock" depends entirely on which of these characteristics aligns with your investment strategy.