Medical - Distribution
Compare Stocks
2 / 10Stock Comparison
MCK vs DBVT
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Biotechnology
MCK vs DBVT — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | ||
|---|---|---|
| Industry | Medical - Distribution | Biotechnology |
| Market Cap | $98.11B | $1669.52T |
| Revenue (TTM) | $397.96B | $0.00 |
| Net Income (TTM) | $4.34B | $-168M |
| Gross Margin | 3.4% | — |
| Operating Margin | 1.3% | — |
| Forward P/E | 20.5x | — |
| Total Debt | $7.39B | $22M |
| Cash & Equiv. | $5.69B | $194M |
MCK vs DBVT — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | May 20 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| McKesson Corporation (MCK) | 100 | 504.8 | +404.8% |
| DBV Technologies S.… (DBVT) | 100 | 40.2 | -59.8% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: MCK vs DBVT
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
MCK carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for income & stability and growth exposure.
- Dividend streak 17 yrs, beta 0.04, yield 0.3%
- Rev growth 16.2%, EPS growth 14.9%, 3Y rev CAGR 10.8%
- 375.1% 10Y total return vs DBVT's -87.1%
DBVT is the clearest fit if your priority is momentum.
- +110.7% vs MCK's +13.7%
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 16.2% revenue growth vs DBVT's -100.0% | |
| Quality / Margins | 1.1% margin vs DBVT's 0.3% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.04 vs DBVT's 1.26 | |
| Dividends | 0.3% yield; 17-year raise streak; the other pay no meaningful dividend | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +110.7% vs MCK's +13.7% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 5.3% ROA vs DBVT's -89.0% |
MCK vs DBVT — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
Segment breakdown not available.
MCK vs DBVT — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 2 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
DBVT leads this category, winning 1 of 1 comparable metric.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
MCK and DBVT operate at a comparable scale, with $398.0B and $0 in trailing revenue.
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $398.0B | $0 |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $5.8B | -$112M |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | $4.3B | -$168M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | $10.1B | -$151M |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +3.4% | — |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | +1.3% | — |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | +1.1% | — |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | +2.5% | — |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +11.4% | — |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +38.2% | +91.5% |
Valuation Metrics
DBVT leads this category, winning 1 of 1 comparable metric.
Valuation Metrics
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $98.1B | $1669.52T |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $99.8B | $1669.52T |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | 31.14x | -0.74x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | 20.53x | — |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | 0.80x | — |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 19.93x | — |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 0.27x | — |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | — | 0.64x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | 18.77x | — |
Profitability & Efficiency
MCK leads this category, winning 4 of 6 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), MCK scores 6/9 vs DBVT's 4/9, reflecting solid financial health.
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | — | -130.2% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | +5.3% | -89.0% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | +5.4% | — |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | +30.5% | -145.7% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 6 | 4 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | — | 0.13x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $1.7B | -$172M |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $5.7B | $194M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $7.4B | $22M |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | 25.04x | -189.82x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
MCK 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 $43,011 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $3,041 for DBVT. Over the past 12 months, DBVT leads with a +110.7% total return vs MCK's +13.7%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors MCK at 30.3% vs DBVT's 5.7% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | -2.6% | +2.3% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | +13.7% | +110.7% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +121.2% | +18.1% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +330.1% | -69.6% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +375.1% | -87.1% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | +30.3% | +5.7% |
Risk & Volatility
MCK leads this category, winning 2 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 DBVT's 1.26 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. MCK currently trades 80.2% from its 52-week high vs DBVT's 74.4% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 0.04x | 1.26x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $999.00 | $26.18 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $637.00 | $7.53 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +80.2% | +74.4% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 27.7 | 43.7 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 690K | 249K |
Analyst Outlook
MCK leads this category, winning 1 of 1 comparable metric.
Analyst Outlook
Wall Street rates MCK as "Buy" and DBVT as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 137.7% upside for DBVT (target: $46) vs 25.7% for MCK (target: $1007). MCK is the only dividend payer here at 0.34% yield — a key consideration for income-focused portfolios.
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Buy | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $1006.50 | $46.33 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 31 | 15 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | +0.3% | — |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 17 | 0 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | $2.69 | — |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | +3.2% | 0.0% |
MCK leads in 4 of 6 categories (Profitability & Efficiency, Total Returns). DBVT leads in 2 (Income & Cash Flow, Valuation Metrics).
MCK vs DBVT: Frequently Asked Questions
9 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is MCK or DBVT a better buy right now?
McKesson Corporation (MCK) offers the better valuation at 31.
1x trailing P/E (20. 5x 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.
02Which is the better long-term investment — MCK or DBVT?
Over the past 5 years, McKesson Corporation (MCK) delivered a total return of +330.
1%, compared to -69. 6% for DBV Technologies S. A. (DBVT). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: MCK returned +375. 1% versus DBVT's -87. 1%. Past returns do not guarantee future results, and the stock with the higher historical return may already have its best growth priced in.
03Which is safer — MCK or DBVT?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), McKesson Corporation (MCK) is the lower-risk stock at 0.
04β versus DBV Technologies S. A. 's 1. 26β — meaning DBVT is approximately 2818% more volatile than MCK relative to the S&P 500.
04Which is growing faster — MCK or DBVT?
On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: McKesson Corporation grew EPS 14.
9% year-over-year, compared to -347. 5% for DBV Technologies S. A.. 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.
05Which has better profit margins — MCK or DBVT?
McKesson Corporation (MCK) is the more profitable company, earning 0.
9% net margin versus 0. 0% for DBV Technologies S. A. — 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 0. 0% for DBVT. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — MCK leads at 3. 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.
06Is MCK or DBVT more undervalued right now?
Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for DBVT: 137.
7% to $46. 33.
07Which pays a better dividend — MCK or DBVT?
In this comparison, MCK (0.
3% yield) pays a dividend. DBVT does not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
08Is MCK or DBVT better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, McKesson Corporation (MCK) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0.
04), +375. 1% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (MCK: +375. 1%, DBVT: -87. 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.
09What are the main differences between MCK and DBVT?
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; DBVT is a mega-cap quality compounder stock. 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 both.
You Might Also Compare
Based on how these companies actually compete and overlap — not just which sector they're filed under.