MCK vs CAH

For growth investors, McKesson Corporation (MCK) is the stronger pick with 16.

2% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -1. 9% for Cardinal Health, Inc. (CAH). Cardinal Health, Inc. (CAH) offers the better valuation at 30. 5x trailing P/E (19. 1x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate McKesson Corporation (MCK) a "Buy" — based on 31 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, Cardinal Health, Inc.

(CAH) is the cheapest at 30. 5x versus McKesson Corporation at 31. 1x. On forward P/E, Cardinal Health, Inc. is actually cheaper at 19. 1x.

Over the past 5 years, McKesson Corporation (MCK) delivered a total return of +330.

1%, compared to +240. 3% for Cardinal Health, Inc. (CAH). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: MCK returned +375. 1% versus CAH's +175. 5%. 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), Cardinal Health, Inc.

(CAH) is the lower-risk stock at 0. 03β versus McKesson Corporation's 0. 04β — meaning MCK is approximately 27% more volatile than CAH relative to the S&P 500.

By revenue growth (latest reported year), McKesson Corporation (MCK) is pulling ahead at 16.

2% versus -1. 9% for Cardinal Health, Inc. (CAH). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Cardinal Health, Inc. grew EPS 87. 0% year-over-year, compared to 14. 9% for McKesson Corporation. Over a 3-year CAGR, MCK leads at 10. 8% 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.

McKesson Corporation (MCK) is the more profitable company, earning 0.

9% net margin versus 0. 7% for Cardinal Health, Inc. — meaning it keeps 0. 9% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: MCK leads at 1. 2% versus 1. 0% for CAH. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — CAH leads at 3. 7%, 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, Cardinal Health, Inc.

(CAH) trades at 19. 1x forward P/E versus 20. 5x for McKesson Corporation — 1. 5x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for CAH: 26. 7% to $249. 67.

All stocks in this comparison pay dividends.

Cardinal Health, Inc. (CAH) offers the highest yield at 1. 0%, versus 0. 3% for McKesson Corporation (MCK).

For long-horizon retirement investors, Cardinal Health, Inc.

(CAH) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0. 03), 1. 0% yield, +175. 5% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (CAH: +175. 5%, MCK: +375. 1%), 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.

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: MCK is a mid-cap high-growth stock; CAH is a mid-cap quality compounder stock. CAH pays a dividend while MCK 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.