OXBR vs MMC

For growth investors, Oxbridge Re Holdings Limited (OXBR) is the stronger pick with 107.

7% revenue growth year-over-year, versus 7. 6% for Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. (MMC). Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. (MMC) offers the better valuation at 21. 3x trailing P/E (16. 9x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. (MMC) a "Hold" — based on 26 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.

Over the past 5 years, Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc.

(MMC) delivered a total return of +36. 6%, compared to -51. 0% for Oxbridge Re Holdings Limited (OXBR). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: MMC returned +210. 8% versus OXBR's -64. 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), Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc.

(MMC) is the lower-risk stock at 0. 14β versus Oxbridge Re Holdings Limited's 2. 69β — meaning OXBR is approximately 1856% more volatile than MMC relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Oxbridge Re Holdings Limited (OXBR) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 6% versus 162% for Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.

By revenue growth (latest reported year), Oxbridge Re Holdings Limited (OXBR) is pulling ahead at 107.

7% versus 7. 6% for Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. (MMC). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Oxbridge Re Holdings Limited grew EPS 73. 4% year-over-year, compared to 8. 6% for Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, MMC leads at 7. 3% 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.

Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc.

(MMC) is the more profitable company, earning 16. 6% net margin versus -323. 1% for Oxbridge Re Holdings Limited — meaning it keeps 16. 6% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: MMC leads at 23. 8% versus -297. 6% for OXBR. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — OXBR leads at 53. 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.

In this comparison, MMC (1.

8% yield) pays a dividend. OXBR does not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.

For long-horizon retirement investors, Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc.

(MMC) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0. 14), 1. 8% yield, +210. 8% 10Y return). Oxbridge Re Holdings Limited (OXBR) carries a higher beta of 2. 69 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (MMC: +210. 8%, OXBR: -64. 5%), 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 Financial Services sector, making this a peer-level intra-sector comparison — the same macro tailwinds and headwinds will affect both.

In terms of investment character: OXBR is a small-cap high-growth stock; MMC is a mid-cap quality compounder stock. MMC pays a dividend while OXBR 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.