Insurance - Brokers
Compare Stocks
5 / 10Stock Comparison
SLQT vs MNSB vs NBTB vs GOCO vs EHC
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Banks - Regional
Banks - Regional
Insurance - Brokers
Medical - Care Facilities
SLQT vs MNSB vs NBTB vs GOCO vs EHC — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Insurance - Brokers | Banks - Regional | Banks - Regional | Insurance - Brokers | Medical - Care Facilities |
| Market Cap | $201M | $176M | $2.35B | $13M | $10.66B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $1.64B | $136M | $867M | $738M | $6.07B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $73M | $16M | $169M | $-199M | $609M |
| Gross Margin | 69.8% | 54.4% | 72.1% | 82.6% | 58.8% |
| Operating Margin | 3.5% | 14.0% | 25.3% | -40.7% | 16.8% |
| Forward P/E | 85.7x | 10.4x | 10.8x | — | 18.1x |
| Total Debt | $416M | $70M | $327M | $528M | $2.71B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $32M | $25M | $185M | $41M | $103M |
SLQT vs MNSB vs NBTB vs GOCO vs EHC — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | Jul 20 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| SelectQuote, Inc. (SLQT) | 100 | 6.4 | -93.6% |
| MainStreet Bancshar… (MNSB) | 100 | 181.8 | +81.8% |
| NBT Bancorp Inc. (NBTB) | 100 | 151.3 | +51.3% |
| GoHealth, Inc. (GOCO) | 100 | 0.4 | -99.6% |
| Encompass Health Co… (EHC) | 100 | 198.0 | +98.0% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: SLQT vs MNSB vs NBTB vs GOCO vs EHC
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
SLQT is the clearest fit if your priority is growth exposure.
- Rev growth 15.5%, EPS growth 106.7%, 3Y rev CAGR 26.0%
- 15.5% revenue growth vs MNSB's -1.4%
MNSB has the current edge in this matchup, primarily because of its strength in bank quality.
- NIM 3.1% vs NBTB's 3.1%
- Lower P/E (10.4x vs 85.7x)
- +26.4% vs GOCO's -88.3%
NBTB is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if income & stability and sleep-well-at-night is your priority.
- Dividend streak 12 yrs, beta 0.89, yield 3.2%
- Lower volatility, beta 0.89, Low D/E 17.3%, current ratio 1.60x
- Beta 0.89, yield 3.2%, current ratio 1.60x
- 19.5% margin vs GOCO's -27.0%
Among these 5 stocks, GOCO doesn't own a clear edge in any measured category.
EHC ranks third and is worth considering specifically for long-term compounding and valuation efficiency.
- 252.2% 10Y total return vs MNSB's 126.9%
- PEG 1.27 vs NBTB's 1.53
- Beta 0.40 vs GOCO's 2.23, lower leverage
- 8.7% ROA vs GOCO's -15.3%, ROIC 13.9% vs -0.6%
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 15.5% revenue growth vs MNSB's -1.4% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (10.4x vs 85.7x) | |
| Quality / Margins | 19.5% margin vs GOCO's -27.0% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.40 vs GOCO's 2.23, lower leverage | |
| Dividends | 3.2% yield, 12-year raise streak, vs EHC's 0.6%, (3 stocks pay no dividend) | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +26.4% vs GOCO's -88.3% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 8.7% ROA vs GOCO's -15.3%, ROIC 13.9% vs -0.6% |
SLQT vs MNSB vs NBTB vs GOCO vs EHC — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
SLQT vs MNSB vs NBTB vs GOCO vs EHC — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 5 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
NBTB leads in 2 of 6 categories
EHC leads 2 • GOCO leads 1 • SLQT leads 0 • MNSB leads 0 • 1 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
NBTB leads this category, winning 3 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
EHC is the larger business by revenue, generating $6.1B annually — 44.6x MNSB's $136M. NBTB is the more profitable business, keeping 19.5% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to GOCO's -27.0%. On growth, EHC holds the edge at +9.0% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $1.6B | $136M | $867M | $738M | $6.1B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $63M | $23M | $241M | -$194M | $1.4B |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | $73M | $16M | $169M | -$199M | $609M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | -$62M | $13M | $225M | -$78M | $172M |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +69.8% | +54.4% | +72.1% | +82.6% | +58.8% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | +3.5% | +14.0% | +25.3% | -40.7% | +16.8% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | +4.5% | +11.5% | +19.5% | -27.0% | +10.0% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | -3.8% | +7.8% | +25.2% | -10.6% | +2.8% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +5.6% | — | — | -71.1% | +9.0% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -114.5% | +120.9% | +39.5% | -30.4% | +19.6% |
Valuation Metrics
GOCO leads this category, winning 4 of 7 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 13.4x trailing earnings, MNSB trades at a 84% valuation discount to SLQT's 85.7x P/E. Adjusting for growth (PEG ratio), EHC offers better value at 1.36x vs NBTB's 1.92x — a lower PEG means you pay less per unit of expected earnings growth.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $201M | $176M | $2.4B | $13M | $10.7B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $584M | $221M | $2.5B | $500M | $13.3B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | 85.71x | 13.36x | 13.53x | -1.50x | 19.35x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | — | 10.45x | 10.80x | — | 18.10x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | — | 1.92x | — | 1.36x |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 6.57x | 11.58x | 10.35x | 5.05x | 9.61x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 0.13x | 1.30x | 2.71x | 0.02x | 1.80x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 0.36x | 0.82x | 1.21x | 0.02x | 3.34x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | — | 16.57x | 10.75x | — | 24.26x |
Profitability & Efficiency
EHC leads this category, winning 6 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
EHC delivers a 18.9% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $19 in annual profit, vs $-64 for GOCO. NBTB carries lower financial leverage with a 0.17x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to GOCO's 1.15x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), EHC scores 9/9 vs GOCO's 4/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | +12.2% | +7.3% | +9.5% | -64.4% | +18.9% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | +5.7% | +0.7% | +1.1% | -15.3% | +8.7% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | +5.3% | +5.0% | +7.9% | -0.6% | +13.9% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | +6.7% | +0.9% | +2.4% | -0.6% | +17.6% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 4 | 5 | 7 | 4 | 9 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.72x | 0.32x | 0.17x | 1.15x | 0.83x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $384M | $45M | $142M | $487M | $2.6B |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $32M | $25M | $185M | $41M | $103M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $416M | $70M | $327M | $528M | $2.7B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | 4.11x | 0.31x | 1.05x | -4.03x | 6.54x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
EHC leads this category, winning 4 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in EHC five years ago would be worth $16,326 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $55 for GOCO. Over the past 12 months, MNSB leads with a +26.4% total return vs GOCO's -88.3%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors EHC at 20.6% vs GOCO's -57.5% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | -16.8% | +19.4% | +9.3% | -58.7% | +1.1% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | -57.6% | +26.4% | +9.0% | -88.3% | -8.1% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -19.7% | +21.5% | +54.1% | -92.3% | +75.4% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -96.1% | +20.6% | +29.9% | -99.4% | +63.3% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -95.8% | +126.9% | +102.2% | -99.7% | +252.2% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | -7.1% | +6.7% | +15.5% | -57.5% | +20.6% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — NBTB and EHC each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
EHC is the less volatile stock with a 0.40 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than GOCO's 2.23 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. NBTB currently trades 96.1% from its 52-week high vs GOCO's 11.3% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 1.96x | 0.66x | 0.89x | 2.23x | 0.40x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $2.80 | $25.17 | $46.92 | $8.75 | $127.99 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $0.56 | $17.86 | $39.20 | $0.99 | $92.77 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +40.7% | +93.4% | +96.1% | +11.3% | +83.7% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 71.7 | 50.4 | 57.3 | 35.0 | 53.6 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 1.2M | 58K | 236K | 78K | 921K |
Analyst Outlook
NBTB leads this category, winning 2 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: SLQT as "Hold", MNSB as "Hold", NBTB as "Hold", EHC as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 250.9% upside for SLQT (target: $4) vs 2.1% for NBTB (target: $46). For income investors, NBTB offers the higher dividend yield at 3.17% vs EHC's 0.65%.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Hold | Hold | Hold | — | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $4.00 | — | $46.00 | — | $153.00 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 11 | 1 | 10 | — | 26 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | — | — | +3.2% | — | +0.6% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 1 | 2 | 12 | 2 | 2 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | — | — | $1.43 | — | $0.70 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | 0.0% | 0.0% | +0.4% | +12.1% | +1.5% |
NBTB leads in 2 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow, Analyst Outlook). EHC leads in 2 (Profitability & Efficiency, Total Returns). 1 tied.
SLQT vs MNSB vs NBTB vs GOCO vs EHC: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is SLQT or MNSB or NBTB or GOCO or EHC a better buy right now?
For growth investors, SelectQuote, Inc.
(SLQT) is the stronger pick with 15. 5% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -1. 4% for MainStreet Bancshares, Inc. (MNSB). MainStreet Bancshares, Inc. (MNSB) offers the better valuation at 13. 4x trailing P/E (10. 4x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Encompass Health Corporation (EHC) a "Buy" — 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.
02Which has the better valuation — SLQT or MNSB or NBTB or GOCO or EHC?
On trailing P/E, MainStreet Bancshares, Inc.
(MNSB) is the cheapest at 13. 4x versus SelectQuote, Inc. at 85. 7x. On forward P/E, MainStreet Bancshares, Inc. is actually cheaper at 10. 4x. The PEG ratio (P/E divided by earnings growth rate) is the most growth-adjusted single valuation metric: Encompass Health Corporation wins at 1. 27x versus NBT Bancorp Inc. 's 1. 53x — a reasonable growth-adjusted valuation.
03Which is the better long-term investment — SLQT or MNSB or NBTB or GOCO or EHC?
Over the past 5 years, Encompass Health Corporation (EHC) delivered a total return of +63.
3%, compared to -99. 4% for GoHealth, Inc. (GOCO). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: EHC returned +252. 2% versus GOCO's -99. 7%. 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 — SLQT or MNSB or NBTB or GOCO or EHC?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Encompass Health Corporation (EHC) is the lower-risk stock at 0.
40β versus GoHealth, Inc. 's 2. 23β — meaning GOCO is approximately 452% more volatile than EHC relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, NBT Bancorp Inc. (NBTB) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 17% versus 115% for GoHealth, Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — SLQT or MNSB or NBTB or GOCO or EHC?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), SelectQuote, Inc.
(SLQT) is pulling ahead at 15. 5% versus -1. 4% for MainStreet Bancshares, Inc. (MNSB). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: MainStreet Bancshares, Inc. grew EPS 210. 0% year-over-year, compared to 12. 5% for NBT Bancorp Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, SLQT leads at 26. 0% 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 — SLQT or MNSB or NBTB or GOCO or EHC?
NBT Bancorp Inc.
(NBTB) is the more profitable company, earning 19. 5% net margin versus -0. 4% for GoHealth, Inc. — meaning it keeps 19. 5% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: NBTB leads at 25. 3% versus -0. 9% for GOCO. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — EHC leads at 95. 7%, 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 SLQT or MNSB or NBTB or GOCO or EHC 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, Encompass Health Corporation (EHC) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 1. 27x versus NBT Bancorp Inc. 's 1. 53x. A PEG below 1. 5 suggests fair-to-attractive pricing relative to expected growth. On forward earnings alone, MainStreet Bancshares, Inc. (MNSB) trades at 10. 4x forward P/E versus 18. 1x for Encompass Health Corporation — 7. 6x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for SLQT: 250. 9% to $4. 00.
08Which pays a better dividend — SLQT or MNSB or NBTB or GOCO or EHC?
In this comparison, NBTB (3.
2% yield), EHC (0. 6% yield) pay a dividend. SLQT, MNSB, GOCO do not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
09Is SLQT or MNSB or NBTB or GOCO or EHC better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, Encompass Health Corporation (EHC) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0.
40), 0. 6% yield, +252. 2% 10Y return). GoHealth, Inc. (GOCO) carries a higher beta of 2. 23 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (EHC: +252. 2%, GOCO: -99. 7%), 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 SLQT and MNSB and NBTB and GOCO and EHC?
These companies operate in different sectors (SLQT (Financial Services) and MNSB (Financial Services) and NBTB (Financial Services) and GOCO (Financial Services) and EHC (Healthcare)), which means they face different economic cycles, regulatory environments, and macro sensitivities — making direct comparison nuanced.
In terms of investment character: SLQT is a small-cap high-growth stock; MNSB is a small-cap deep-value stock; NBTB is a small-cap deep-value stock; GOCO is a small-cap quality compounder stock; EHC is a mid-cap quality compounder stock. NBTB, EHC pay a dividend while SLQT, MNSB, GOCO 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.