Education & Training Services
Compare Stocks
5 / 10Stock Comparison
MH vs PRDO vs STRA vs CHGG vs LAUR
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Education & Training Services
Education & Training Services
Education & Training Services
Education & Training Services
MH vs PRDO vs STRA vs CHGG vs LAUR — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Education & Training Services | Education & Training Services | Education & Training Services | Education & Training Services | Education & Training Services |
| Market Cap | $2.17B | $2.20B | $1.79B | $104M | $4.68B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $2.11B | $855M | $1.27B | $319M | $1.74B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $-71M | $170M | $130M | $-86M | $280M |
| Gross Margin | 80.8% | 51.8% | 37.4% | 61.9% | 26.9% |
| Operating Margin | 14.7% | 24.3% | 14.0% | -11.1% | 24.0% |
| Forward P/E | 6.2x | 12.3x | 10.9x | — | 15.3x |
| Total Debt | $3.26B | $105M | $109M | $84M | $847M |
| Cash & Equiv. | $390M | $132M | $141M | $31M | $147M |
MH vs PRDO vs STRA vs CHGG vs LAUR — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | May 20 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Perdoceo Education … (PRDO) | 100 | 215.7 | +115.7% |
| Strategic Education… (STRA) | 100 | 46.3 | -53.7% |
| Chegg, Inc. (CHGG) | 100 | 1.5 | -98.5% |
| Laureate Education,… (LAUR) | 100 | 336.9 | +236.9% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: MH vs PRDO vs STRA vs CHGG vs LAUR
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
MH is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if value is your priority.
- Lower P/E (6.2x vs 15.3x)
PRDO carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for income & stability and growth exposure.
- Dividend streak 5 yrs, beta 0.30, yield 1.6%
- Rev growth 24.2%, EPS growth 10.5%, 3Y rev CAGR 6.8%
- 5.5% 10Y total return vs LAUR's 221.4%
- Lower volatility, beta 0.30, Low D/E 10.8%, current ratio 5.06x
STRA ranks third and is worth considering specifically for valuation efficiency.
- PEG 1.45 vs PRDO's 1.80
- 3.2% yield, 1-year raise streak, vs PRDO's 1.6%, (3 stocks pay no dividend)
Among these 5 stocks, CHGG doesn't own a clear edge in any measured category.
LAUR is the clearest fit if your priority is momentum.
- +45.6% vs MH's -33.2%
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 24.2% revenue growth vs CHGG's -39.0% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (6.2x vs 15.3x) | |
| Quality / Margins | 19.9% margin vs CHGG's -26.9% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.30 vs CHGG's 2.83, lower leverage | |
| Dividends | 3.2% yield, 1-year raise streak, vs PRDO's 1.6%, (3 stocks pay no dividend) | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +45.6% vs MH's -33.2% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 13.2% ROA vs CHGG's -26.3%, ROIC 15.3% vs -13.4% |
MH vs PRDO vs STRA vs CHGG vs LAUR — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
Segment breakdown not available.
MH vs PRDO vs STRA vs CHGG vs LAUR — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 5 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
PRDO leads in 3 of 6 categories
MH leads 1 • STRA leads 0 • CHGG leads 0 • LAUR leads 0 • 2 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
PRDO leads this category, winning 3 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
MH is the larger business by revenue, generating $2.1B annually — 6.6x CHGG's $319M. PRDO is the more profitable business, keeping 19.9% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to CHGG's -26.9%. On growth, LAUR holds the edge at +15.4% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $2.1B | $855M | $1.3B | $319M | $1.7B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $591M | $247M | $216M | $11M | $535M |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | -$71M | $170M | $130M | -$86M | $280M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | $317M | $221M | $174M | -$25M | $264M |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +80.8% | +51.8% | +37.4% | +61.9% | +26.9% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | +14.7% | +24.3% | +14.0% | -11.1% | +24.0% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | -3.4% | +19.9% | +10.2% | -26.9% | +16.1% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | +15.0% | +25.8% | +13.7% | -8.0% | +15.2% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | — | +4.1% | +0.8% | -47.9% | +15.4% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | — | +30.8% | +19.4% | +101.2% | -15.4% |
Valuation Metrics
MH leads this category, winning 3 of 7 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 14.5x trailing earnings, STRA trades at a 16% valuation discount to LAUR's 17.3x P/E. Adjusting for growth (PEG ratio), STRA offers better value at 1.92x vs PRDO's 2.13x — a lower PEG means you pay less per unit of expected earnings growth.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $2.2B | $2.2B | $1.8B | $104M | $4.7B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $5.0B | $2.2B | $1.8B | $157M | $5.4B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | -25.22x | 14.51x | 14.49x | -0.97x | 17.34x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | 6.18x | 12.28x | 10.93x | — | 15.27x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | 2.13x | 1.92x | — | — |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 7.52x | 9.15x | 7.17x | 10.24x | 9.93x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 1.03x | 2.60x | 1.41x | 0.28x | 2.75x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 7.74x | 2.39x | 1.09x | 0.83x | 4.10x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | 4.47x | 10.16x | 11.60x | — | 17.78x |
Profitability & Efficiency
Evenly matched — STRA and LAUR each lead in 3 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
LAUR delivers a 25.4% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $25 in annual profit, vs $-63 for CHGG. STRA carries lower financial leverage with a 0.07x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to MH's 11.62x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), MH scores 8/9 vs LAUR's 5/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | -9.2% | +17.2% | +7.9% | -62.9% | +25.4% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | -1.3% | +13.2% | +6.2% | -26.3% | +12.9% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | +6.7% | +15.3% | +9.0% | -13.4% | +20.3% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | +6.7% | +17.5% | +10.7% | -26.5% | +26.7% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 8 | 7 | 8 | 6 | 5 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 11.62x | 0.11x | 0.07x | 0.70x | 0.71x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $2.9B | -$27M | -$32M | $53M | $701M |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $390M | $132M | $141M | $31M | $147M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $3.3B | $105M | $109M | $84M | $847M |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | 1.17x | 50.21x | — | -525.53x | 34.91x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
PRDO leads this category, winning 5 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in PRDO five years ago would be worth $30,853 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $116 for CHGG. Over the past 12 months, LAUR leads with a +45.6% total return vs MH's -33.2%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors PRDO at 45.3% vs CHGG's -54.3% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | -30.6% | +21.2% | +0.7% | -5.3% | -1.6% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | -33.2% | +14.9% | -9.1% | +25.1% | +45.6% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -33.2% | +206.7% | +6.7% | -90.4% | +178.8% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -33.2% | +208.5% | +15.6% | -98.8% | +198.4% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -33.2% | +554.7% | +118.7% | -79.0% | +221.4% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | -12.6% | +45.3% | +2.2% | -54.3% | +40.7% |
Risk & Volatility
PRDO leads this category, winning 2 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
PRDO is the less volatile stock with a 0.30 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than CHGG's 2.83 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. PRDO currently trades 91.2% from its 52-week high vs CHGG's 48.8% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 0.76x | 0.30x | 0.49x | 2.83x | 0.56x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $18.00 | $38.50 | $93.45 | $1.90 | $37.91 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $10.70 | $26.66 | $69.70 | $0.53 | $21.16 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +63.1% | +91.2% | +84.0% | +48.8% | +86.5% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 33.2 | 54.6 | 45.1 | 49.0 | 50.8 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 365K | 588K | 299K | 1.5M | 1.8M |
Analyst Outlook
Evenly matched — PRDO and STRA each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: MH as "Buy", PRDO as "Hold", STRA as "Buy", CHGG as "Hold", LAUR as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 3179.1% upside for CHGG (target: $30) vs 10.8% for STRA (target: $87). For income investors, STRA offers the higher dividend yield at 3.21% vs PRDO's 1.59%.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Buy | Hold | Buy | Hold | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $19.60 | $44.00 | $87.00 | $30.42 | $39.00 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 7 | 9 | 18 | 22 | 11 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | — | +1.6% | +3.2% | — | +0.0% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | — | 5 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | — | $0.56 | $2.52 | — | $0.00 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | 0.0% | +5.5% | +7.8% | 0.0% | +4.6% |
PRDO leads in 3 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow, Total Returns). MH leads in 1 (Valuation Metrics). 2 tied.
MH vs PRDO vs STRA vs CHGG vs LAUR: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is MH or PRDO or STRA or CHGG or LAUR a better buy right now?
For growth investors, Perdoceo Education Corporation (PRDO) is the stronger pick with 24.
2% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -39. 0% for Chegg, Inc. (CHGG). Strategic Education, Inc. (STRA) offers the better valuation at 14. 5x trailing P/E (10. 9x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate McGraw Hill, Inc. (MH) a "Buy" — based on 7 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 — MH or PRDO or STRA or CHGG or LAUR?
On trailing P/E, Strategic Education, Inc.
(STRA) is the cheapest at 14. 5x versus Laureate Education, Inc. at 17. 3x. On forward P/E, McGraw Hill, Inc. is actually cheaper at 6. 2x — 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: Strategic Education, Inc. wins at 1. 45x versus Perdoceo Education Corporation's 1. 80x — a reasonable growth-adjusted valuation.
03Which is the better long-term investment — MH or PRDO or STRA or CHGG or LAUR?
Over the past 5 years, Perdoceo Education Corporation (PRDO) delivered a total return of +208.
5%, compared to -98. 8% for Chegg, Inc. (CHGG). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: PRDO returned +554. 7% versus CHGG's -79. 0%. 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 — MH or PRDO or STRA or CHGG or LAUR?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Perdoceo Education Corporation (PRDO) is the lower-risk stock at 0.
30β versus Chegg, Inc. 's 2. 83β — meaning CHGG is approximately 852% more volatile than PRDO relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Strategic Education, Inc. (STRA) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 7% versus 12% for McGraw Hill, Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — MH or PRDO or STRA or CHGG or LAUR?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), Perdoceo Education Corporation (PRDO) is pulling ahead at 24.
2% versus -39. 0% for Chegg, Inc. (CHGG). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Chegg, Inc. grew EPS 88. 1% year-over-year, compared to -1. 6% for Laureate Education, Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, LAUR leads at 11. 1% 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 — MH or PRDO or STRA or CHGG or LAUR?
Perdoceo Education Corporation (PRDO) is the more profitable company, earning 18.
9% net margin versus -27. 4% for Chegg, Inc. — meaning it keeps 18. 9% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: LAUR leads at 25. 3% versus -16. 8% for CHGG. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — MH leads at 79. 9%, 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 MH or PRDO or STRA or CHGG or LAUR 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, Strategic Education, Inc. (STRA) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 1. 45x versus Perdoceo Education Corporation's 1. 80x. A PEG below 1. 5 suggests fair-to-attractive pricing relative to expected growth. On forward earnings alone, McGraw Hill, Inc. (MH) trades at 6. 2x forward P/E versus 15. 3x for Laureate Education, Inc. — 9. 1x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for CHGG: 3179. 1% to $30. 42.
08Which pays a better dividend — MH or PRDO or STRA or CHGG or LAUR?
In this comparison, STRA (3.
2% yield), PRDO (1. 6% yield) pay a dividend. MH, CHGG, LAUR do not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
09Is MH or PRDO or STRA or CHGG or LAUR better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, Perdoceo Education Corporation (PRDO) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0.
30), 1. 6% yield, +554. 7% 10Y return). Chegg, Inc. (CHGG) carries a higher beta of 2. 83 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (PRDO: +554. 7%, CHGG: -79. 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.
10What are the main differences between MH and PRDO and STRA and CHGG and LAUR?
Both stocks operate in the Consumer Defensive sector, making this a peer-level intra-sector comparison — the same macro tailwinds and headwinds will affect both.
In terms of investment character: MH is a small-cap quality compounder stock; PRDO is a small-cap high-growth stock; STRA is a small-cap deep-value stock; CHGG is a small-cap quality compounder stock; LAUR is a small-cap deep-value stock. PRDO, STRA pay a dividend while MH, CHGG, LAUR 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.