MCK vs CAH vs HSIC vs OMI vs BDX

For growth investors, McKesson Corporation (MCK) is the stronger pick with 12.

4% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -74. 2% for Owens & Minor, Inc. (OMI). McKesson Corporation (MCK) offers the better valuation at 19. 2x trailing P/E (16. 7x 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, McKesson Corporation (MCK) is the cheapest at 19.

2x versus Cardinal Health, Inc. at 28. 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. 43x versus Henry Schein, Inc. 's 4. 20x — a PEG below 1. 0 traditionally signals the market is underpricing earnings growth.

Over the past 5 years, McKesson Corporation (MCK) delivered a total return of +270.

4%, compared to -93. 3% for Owens & Minor, Inc. (OMI). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: MCK returned +339. 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.

By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), McKesson Corporation (MCK) is the lower-risk stock at -0.

02β versus Owens & Minor, Inc. 's 1. 45β — meaning OMI is approximately -8947% more volatile than MCK relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Becton, Dickinson and Company (BDX) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 76% versus 110% for McKesson Corporation — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.

By revenue growth (latest reported year), McKesson Corporation (MCK) is pulling ahead at 12.

4% versus -74. 2% for Owens & Minor, Inc. (OMI). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Cardinal Health, Inc. grew EPS 87. 0% year-over-year, compared to -201. 1% for Owens & Minor, Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, MCK leads at 13. 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.

Becton, Dickinson and Company (BDX) is the more profitable company, earning 7.

7% net margin versus -39. 8% for Owens & Minor, Inc. — meaning it keeps 7. 7% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: BDX leads at 11. 8% versus 1. 0% for OMI. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — BDX leads at 45. 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.

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. 43x versus Henry Schein, Inc. 's 4. 20x. 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 17. 1x for Cardinal Health, Inc. — 14. 8x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for OMI: 596. 4% to $15. 60.

In this comparison, BDX (2.

8% yield), CAH (1. 1% yield), MCK (0. 4% yield) pay a dividend. HSIC, OMI do not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.

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. 01), 1. 1% yield, +158. 8% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (CAH: +158. 8%, 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.

Both stocks operate in the Healthcare sector, making this a peer-level intra-sector comparison — the same macro tailwinds and headwinds will affect both.

CAH, BDX pay a dividend while MCK, HSIC, 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.