Medical - Distribution
Compare Stocks
5 / 10Stock Comparison
GRDN vs PINC vs MCK vs ENSG vs OMI
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Medical - Healthcare Information Services
Medical - Distribution
Medical - Care Facilities
Medical - Distribution
GRDN vs PINC vs MCK vs ENSG vs OMI — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Medical - Distribution | Medical - Healthcare Information Services | Medical - Distribution | Medical - Care Facilities | Medical - Distribution |
| Market Cap | $2.30B | $2.34B | $92.15B | $10.18B | $171M |
| Revenue (TTM) | $1.46B | $1.00B | $403.43B | $5.27B | $2.76B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $53M | $-24M | $4.76B | $363M | $-1.10B |
| Gross Margin | 20.2% | 72.6% | 3.6% | 15.2% | — |
| Operating Margin | 6.4% | -0.0% | 1.5% | 8.5% | 1.0% |
| Forward P/E | 29.6x | 20.8x | 19.3x | 23.2x | 2.3x |
| Total Debt | $37M | $282M | $7.39B | $4.15B | $320M |
| Cash & Equiv. | $66M | $84M | $5.69B | $504M | $282M |
GRDN vs PINC vs MCK vs ENSG vs OMI — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | Sep 24 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Guardian Pharmacy S… (GRDN) | 100 | 216.0 | +116.0% |
| Premier, Inc. (PINC) | 100 | 140.6 | +40.6% |
| McKesson Corporation (MCK) | 100 | 152.2 | +52.2% |
| The Ensign Group, I… (ENSG) | 100 | 121.2 | +21.2% |
| Owens & Minor, Inc. (OMI) | 100 | 14.1 | -85.9% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: GRDN vs PINC vs MCK vs ENSG vs OMI
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
GRDN has the current edge in this matchup, primarily because of its strength in momentum and efficiency.
- +40.5% vs OMI's -71.1%
- 13.4% ROA vs OMI's -44.9%, ROIC 35.8% vs 1.8%
PINC is the clearest fit if your priority is sleep-well-at-night.
- Lower volatility, beta 0.07, Low D/E 18.4%, current ratio 0.64x
- 3.0% yield, 1-year raise streak, vs MCK's 0.4%, (2 stocks pay no dividend)
MCK is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if income & stability and long-term compounding is your priority.
- Dividend streak 17 yrs, beta 0.04, yield 0.4%
- 348.1% 10Y total return vs ENSG's 7.5%
- PEG 0.49 vs ENSG's 1.68
- Beta 0.04, yield 0.4%, current ratio 0.90x
ENSG ranks third and is worth considering specifically for growth exposure.
- Rev growth 18.7%, EPS growth 14.1%, 3Y rev CAGR 18.7%
- 18.7% revenue growth vs OMI's -74.2%
- 6.9% margin vs OMI's -39.8%
Among these 5 stocks, OMI doesn't own a clear edge in any measured category.
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 18.7% revenue growth vs OMI's -74.2% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (19.3x vs 23.2x), PEG 0.49 vs 1.68 | |
| Quality / Margins | 6.9% margin vs OMI's -39.8% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.04 vs OMI's 1.44 | |
| Dividends | 3.0% yield, 1-year raise streak, vs MCK's 0.4%, (2 stocks pay no dividend) | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +40.5% vs OMI's -71.1% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 13.4% ROA vs OMI's -44.9%, ROIC 35.8% vs 1.8% |
GRDN vs PINC vs MCK vs ENSG vs OMI — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
GRDN vs PINC vs MCK vs ENSG vs OMI — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 5 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
GRDN leads in 2 of 6 categories
ENSG leads 1 • OMI leads 1 • PINC leads 0 • MCK leads 0 • 2 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
ENSG leads this category, winning 3 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
MCK is the larger business by revenue, generating $403.4B annually — 402.2x PINC's $1.0B. ENSG is the more profitable business, keeping 6.9% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to OMI's -39.8%. On growth, ENSG holds the edge at +18.4% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $1.5B | $1.0B | $403.4B | $5.3B | $2.8B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $112M | $118M | $6.8B | $558M | $277M |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | $53M | -$24M | $4.8B | $363M | -$1.1B |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | $70M | $265M | $6.0B | $406M | -$353M |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +20.2% | +72.6% | +3.6% | +15.2% | — |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | +6.4% | -0.0% | +1.5% | +8.5% | +1.0% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | +3.6% | -2.4% | +1.2% | +6.9% | -39.8% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | +4.8% | +26.4% | +1.5% | +7.7% | -12.8% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +2.2% | -3.3% | +6.0% | +18.4% | -146.3% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +40.0% | -70.0% | +37.0% | +21.9% | +4.5% |
Valuation Metrics
OMI leads this category, winning 4 of 7 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 29.2x trailing earnings, MCK trades at a 77% valuation discount to PINC's 128.5x P/E. Adjusting for growth (PEG ratio), MCK offers better value at 0.75x vs GRDN's 2.48x — a lower PEG means you pay less per unit of expected earnings growth.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $2.3B | $2.3B | $92.1B | $10.2B | $171M |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $2.3B | $2.5B | $93.8B | $13.8B | $209M |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | 46.51x | 128.45x | 29.25x | 29.85x | -0.16x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | 29.62x | 20.79x | 19.28x | 23.19x | 2.31x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | 2.48x | — | 0.75x | 2.16x | — |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 20.40x | 21.35x | 18.74x | 25.71x | 1.70x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 1.59x | 2.31x | 0.26x | 2.01x | 0.06x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 10.54x | 1.70x | — | 4.59x | — |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | 28.47x | 7.33x | 17.63x | 27.46x | — |
Profitability & Efficiency
GRDN leads this category, winning 7 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
MCK delivers a 3.0% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $3 in annual profit, vs $-21 for OMI. GRDN carries lower financial leverage with a 0.17x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to ENSG's 1.86x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), GRDN scores 6/9 vs OMI's 2/9, reflecting solid financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | +25.4% | -1.6% | +3.0% | +16.6% | -21.1% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | +13.4% | -0.8% | +5.7% | +6.8% | -44.9% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | +35.8% | +0.0% | +5.4% | +7.0% | +1.8% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | +41.5% | +0.0% | +30.5% | +10.2% | +1.3% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 6 | 4 | 6 | 5 | 2 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.17x | 0.18x | — | 1.86x | — |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | -$28M | $198M | $1.7B | $3.7B | $38M |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $66M | $84M | $5.7B | $504M | $282M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $37M | $282M | $7.4B | $4.2B | $320M |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | 129.16x | 1.13x | 33.79x | 88.33x | -0.12x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
GRDN leads this category, winning 4 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in MCK five years ago would be worth $38,689 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $655 for OMI. Over the past 12 months, GRDN leads with a +40.5% total return vs OMI's -71.1%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors GRDN at 31.4% vs OMI's -49.9% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | +22.9% | — | -8.5% | +0.3% | -3.4% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | +40.5% | +24.0% | +4.6% | +27.5% | -71.1% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +126.7% | +14.8% | +106.4% | +88.9% | -87.4% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +126.8% | -9.2% | +286.9% | +103.2% | -93.5% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +126.7% | -4.6% | +348.1% | +752.0% | -86.2% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | +31.4% | +4.7% | +27.3% | +23.6% | -49.9% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — PINC and MCK each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
MCK is the less volatile stock with a 0.04 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than OMI's 1.44 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. PINC currently trades 98.2% from its 52-week high vs OMI's 23.5% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 1.04x | 0.07x | 0.04x | 0.42x | 1.44x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $41.36 | $28.79 | $999.00 | $218.00 | $9.55 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $19.17 | $20.62 | $637.00 | $133.81 | $1.84 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +87.7% | +98.2% | +75.3% | +80.0% | +23.5% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 47.4 | 65.0 | 16.2 | 23.3 | 46.5 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 461K | 0 | 757K | 358K | 690K |
Analyst Outlook
Evenly matched — PINC and MCK each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: GRDN as "Buy", PINC as "Hold", MCK as "Buy", ENSG as "Buy", OMI as "Hold". Consensus price targets imply 78.6% upside for OMI (target: $4) vs -0.0% for PINC (target: $28). For income investors, PINC offers the higher dividend yield at 2.98% vs ENSG's 0.14%.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Buy | Hold | Buy | Buy | Hold |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $38.00 | $28.25 | $1006.50 | $222.33 | $4.00 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 3 | 31 | 31 | 13 | 10 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | — | +3.0% | +0.4% | +0.1% | — |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 0 | 1 | 17 | 12 | 0 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | — | $0.84 | $2.69 | $0.24 | — |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | +1.3% | +17.1% | +3.4% | +0.2% | 0.0% |
GRDN leads in 2 of 6 categories (Profitability & Efficiency, Total Returns). ENSG leads in 1 (Income & Cash Flow). 2 tied.
GRDN vs PINC vs MCK vs ENSG vs OMI: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is GRDN or PINC or MCK or ENSG or OMI a better buy right now?
For growth investors, The Ensign Group, Inc.
(ENSG) is the stronger pick with 18. 7% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -74. 2% for Owens & Minor, Inc. (OMI). McKesson Corporation (MCK) offers the better valuation at 29. 2x trailing P/E (19. 3x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Guardian Pharmacy Services, Inc. (GRDN) a "Buy" — based on 3 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.
02Which has the better valuation — GRDN or PINC or MCK or ENSG or OMI?
On trailing P/E, McKesson Corporation (MCK) is the cheapest at 29.
2x versus Premier, Inc. at 128. 5x. On forward P/E, Owens & Minor, Inc. is actually cheaper at 2. 3x — notably different from the trailing picture, reflecting expected earnings growth. The PEG ratio (P/E divided by earnings growth rate) is the most growth-adjusted single valuation metric: McKesson Corporation wins at 0. 49x versus The Ensign Group, Inc. 's 1. 68x — a PEG below 1. 0 traditionally signals the market is underpricing earnings growth.
03Which is the better long-term investment — GRDN or PINC or MCK or ENSG or OMI?
Over the past 5 years, McKesson Corporation (MCK) delivered a total return of +286.
9%, compared to -93. 5% for Owens & Minor, Inc. (OMI). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: ENSG returned +752. 0% versus OMI's -86. 2%. Past returns do not guarantee future results, and the stock with the higher historical return may already have its best growth priced in.
04Which is safer — GRDN or PINC or MCK or ENSG or OMI?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), McKesson Corporation (MCK) is the lower-risk stock at 0.
04β versus Owens & Minor, Inc. 's 1. 44β — meaning OMI is approximately 3251% more volatile than MCK relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Guardian Pharmacy Services, Inc. (GRDN) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 17% versus 186% for The Ensign Group, Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — GRDN or PINC or MCK or ENSG or OMI?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), The Ensign Group, Inc.
(ENSG) is pulling ahead at 18. 7% versus -74. 2% for Owens & Minor, Inc. (OMI). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Guardian Pharmacy Services, Inc. grew EPS 144. 1% year-over-year, compared to -201. 1% for Owens & Minor, Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, ENSG leads at 18. 7% 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.
06Which has better profit margins — GRDN or PINC or MCK or ENSG or OMI?
The Ensign Group, Inc.
(ENSG) is the more profitable company, earning 6. 8% net margin versus -39. 8% for Owens & Minor, Inc. — meaning it keeps 6. 8% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: ENSG leads at 8. 6% versus 0. 1% for PINC. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — PINC leads at 73. 4%, 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.
07Is GRDN or PINC or MCK or ENSG or OMI more undervalued right now?
The PEG ratio (forward P/E divided by expected earnings growth rate) is the most precise measure of undervaluation relative to growth potential.
By this metric, McKesson Corporation (MCK) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 0. 49x versus The Ensign Group, Inc. 's 1. 68x. A PEG below 1. 0 is traditionally considered the threshold for growth-adjusted undervaluation. On forward earnings alone, Owens & Minor, Inc. (OMI) trades at 2. 3x forward P/E versus 29. 6x for Guardian Pharmacy Services, Inc. — 27. 3x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for OMI: 78. 6% to $4. 00.
08Which pays a better dividend — GRDN or PINC or MCK or ENSG or OMI?
In this comparison, PINC (3.
0% yield), MCK (0. 4% yield), ENSG (0. 1% yield) pay a dividend. GRDN, OMI do not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
09Is GRDN or PINC or MCK or ENSG or OMI better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, Premier, Inc.
(PINC) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0. 07), 3. 0% yield). Both have compounded well over 10 years (PINC: -4. 6%, OMI: -86. 2%), 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.
10What are the main differences between GRDN and PINC and MCK and ENSG and OMI?
Both stocks operate in the Healthcare sector, making this a peer-level intra-sector comparison — the same macro tailwinds and headwinds will affect both.
In terms of investment character: GRDN is a small-cap high-growth stock; PINC is a small-cap quality compounder stock; MCK is a mid-cap high-growth stock; ENSG is a mid-cap high-growth stock; OMI is a small-cap quality compounder stock. PINC pays a dividend while GRDN, MCK, ENSG, OMI do 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.
Find Stocks Like These
Explore pre-built screens for each stock's profile, or build a custom screen to find stocks that outperform all of them.
You Might Also Compare
Based on how these companies actually compete and overlap — not just which sector they're filed under.