ROL vs AMGN

For growth investors, Rollins, Inc.

(ROL) is the stronger pick with 11. 0% revenue growth year-over-year, versus 9. 9% for Amgen Inc. (AMGN). Amgen Inc. (AMGN) offers the better valuation at 23. 3x trailing P/E (14. 8x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Amgen Inc. (AMGN) a "Buy" — based on 38 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, Amgen Inc.

(AMGN) is the cheapest at 23. 3x versus Rollins, Inc. at 49. 7x. On forward P/E, Amgen Inc. is actually cheaper at 14. 8x. The PEG ratio (P/E divided by earnings growth rate) is the most growth-adjusted single valuation metric: Rollins, Inc. wins at 2. 95x versus Amgen Inc. 's 5. 04x.

Over the past 5 years, Rollins, Inc.

(ROL) delivered a total return of +54. 1%, compared to +48. 7% for Amgen Inc. (AMGN). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: ROL returned +380. 6% versus AMGN's +161. 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), Rollins, Inc.

(ROL) is the lower-risk stock at 0. 24β versus Amgen Inc. 's 0. 60β — meaning AMGN is approximately 151% more volatile than ROL relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Rollins, Inc. (ROL) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 97% versus 6% for Amgen Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.

By revenue growth (latest reported year), Rollins, Inc.

(ROL) is pulling ahead at 11. 0% versus 9. 9% for Amgen Inc. (AMGN). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Amgen Inc. grew EPS 88. 2% year-over-year, compared to 13. 5% for Rollins, Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, AMGN leads at 11. 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.

Amgen Inc.

(AMGN) is the more profitable company, earning 21. 0% net margin versus 14. 0% for Rollins, Inc. — meaning it keeps 21. 0% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: AMGN leads at 29. 1% versus 19. 4% for ROL. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — AMGN leads at 70. 8%, 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, Rollins, Inc. (ROL) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 2. 95x versus Amgen Inc. 's 5. 04x. Both stocks trade at elevated growth-adjusted valuations, so expected growth needs to materialise. On forward earnings alone, Amgen Inc. (AMGN) trades at 14. 8x forward P/E versus 44. 5x for Rollins, Inc. — 29. 7x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for ROL: 18. 1% to $64. 00.

All stocks in this comparison pay dividends.

Amgen Inc. (AMGN) offers the highest yield at 2. 9%, versus 1. 2% for Rollins, Inc. (ROL).

For long-horizon retirement investors, Rollins, Inc.

(ROL) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0. 24), 1. 2% yield, +380. 6% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (ROL: +380. 6%, AMGN: +161. 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.

These companies operate in different sectors (ROL (Consumer Cyclical) and AMGN (Healthcare)), which means they face different economic cycles, regulatory environments, and macro sensitivities — making direct comparison nuanced.

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.