Medical - Distribution
Compare Stocks
5 / 10Stock Comparison
WGRX vs MCK vs CAH vs HSIC vs OMI
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Medical - Distribution
Medical - Distribution
Medical - Distribution
Medical - Distribution
WGRX vs MCK vs CAH vs HSIC vs OMI — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Medical - Distribution | Medical - Distribution | Medical - Distribution | Medical - Distribution | Medical - Distribution |
| Market Cap | $8M | $90.21B | $43.22B | $8.13B | $171M |
| Revenue (TTM) | $6M | $403.43B | $250.55B | $13.18B | $2.76B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $-73M | $4.76B | $1.56B | $398M | $-1.10B |
| Gross Margin | 4.1% | 3.6% | 3.7% | 29.1% | — |
| Operating Margin | -12.1% | 1.5% | 0.9% | 5.8% | 1.0% |
| Forward P/E | — | 16.7x | 17.1x | 13.2x | 2.3x |
| Total Debt | $25M | $8.61B | $9.35B | $3.69B | $320M |
| Cash & Equiv. | $1M | $3.98B | $3.87B | $156M | $282M |
WGRX vs MCK vs CAH vs HSIC vs OMI — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | Feb 25 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wellgistics Health,… (WGRX) | 100 | 3.1 | -96.9% |
| McKesson Corporation (MCK) | 100 | 115.0 | +15.0% |
| Cardinal Health, In… (CAH) | 100 | 141.8 | +41.8% |
| Henry Schein, Inc. (HSIC) | 100 | 98.1 | -1.9% |
| Owens & Minor, Inc. (OMI) | 100 | 23.1 | -76.9% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: WGRX vs MCK vs CAH vs HSIC vs OMI
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
WGRX lags the leaders in this set but could rank higher in a more targeted comparison.
MCK carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for growth exposure and long-term compounding.
- Rev growth 12.4%, EPS growth 49.2%, 3Y rev CAGR 13.4%
- 339.0% 10Y total return vs CAH's 158.8%
- PEG 0.43 vs HSIC's 4.20
- 12.4% revenue growth vs WGRX's -91.8%
CAH is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if income & stability and defensive is your priority.
- Dividend streak 20 yrs, beta 0.01, yield 1.1%
- Beta 0.01, yield 1.1%, current ratio 0.94x
- Beta 0.01 vs OMI's 1.45
- 1.1% yield, 20-year raise streak, vs MCK's 0.4%, (3 stocks pay no dividend)
HSIC ranks third and is worth considering specifically for sleep-well-at-night.
- Lower volatility, beta 0.72, Low D/E 76.9%, current ratio 1.38x
- 3.0% margin vs WGRX's -13.0%
Among these 5 stocks, OMI doesn't own a clear edge in any measured category.
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 12.4% revenue growth vs WGRX's -91.8% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (16.7x vs 17.1x) | |
| Quality / Margins | 3.0% margin vs WGRX's -13.0% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.01 vs OMI's 1.45 | |
| Dividends | 1.1% yield, 20-year raise streak, vs MCK's 0.4%, (3 stocks pay no dividend) | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +26.1% vs WGRX's -97.2% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 5.7% ROA vs WGRX's -138.4%, ROIC 74.5% vs -32.2% |
WGRX vs MCK vs CAH vs HSIC vs OMI — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
WGRX vs MCK vs CAH vs HSIC vs OMI — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 5 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
CAH leads in 2 of 6 categories
HSIC leads 1 • OMI leads 1 • MCK leads 1 • WGRX leads 0 • 1 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
HSIC leads this category, winning 4 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
MCK is the larger business by revenue, generating $403.4B annually — 71797.5x WGRX's $6M. HSIC is the more profitable business, keeping 3.0% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to WGRX's -13.0%. On growth, CAH holds the edge at +11.0% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $6M | $403.4B | $250.5B | $13.2B | $2.8B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | -$65M | $6.8B | $3.2B | $1.1B | $277M |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | -$73M | $4.8B | $1.6B | $398M | -$1.1B |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | -$7M | $6.0B | $4.4B | $561M | -$353M |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +4.1% | +3.6% | +3.7% | +29.1% | — |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | -12.1% | +1.5% | +0.9% | +5.8% | +1.0% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | -13.0% | +1.2% | +0.6% | +3.0% | -39.8% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | -130.5% | +1.5% | +1.8% | +4.3% | -12.8% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -80.9% | +6.0% | +11.0% | +7.7% | -146.3% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -11.8% | +37.0% | -19.5% | +14.9% | +4.5% |
Valuation Metrics
OMI leads this category, winning 3 of 7 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 19.2x trailing earnings, MCK trades at a 33% valuation discount to CAH's 28.5x P/E. Adjusting for growth (PEG ratio), MCK offers better value at 0.43x vs HSIC's 6.87x — a lower PEG means you pay less per unit of expected earnings growth.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $8M | $90.2B | $43.2B | $8.1B | $171M |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $32M | $94.9B | $48.7B | $11.7B | $209M |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | -0.65x | 19.19x | 28.47x | 21.66x | -0.16x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | — | 16.66x | 17.09x | 13.25x | 2.31x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | 0.43x | — | 6.87x | — |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | — | 15.27x | 15.88x | 10.90x | 1.70x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 0.42x | 0.22x | 0.19x | 0.62x | 0.06x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 0.65x | 11.63x | — | 1.80x | — |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | — | 14.66x | 23.36x | 14.18x | — |
Profitability & Efficiency
MCK leads this category, winning 5 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
MCK delivers a 3.0% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $3 in annual profit, vs $-21 for OMI. HSIC carries lower financial leverage with a 0.77x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to WGRX's 3.73x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), MCK scores 7/9 vs OMI's 2/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | -10.8% | +3.0% | — | +8.2% | -21.1% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | -138.4% | +5.7% | +2.8% | +3.6% | -44.9% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | -32.2% | +74.5% | +33.8% | +7.1% | +1.8% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | -73.4% | +43.1% | +19.2% | +9.8% | +1.3% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 6 | 7 | 6 | 4 | 2 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 3.73x | 1.10x | — | 0.77x | — |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $24M | $4.6B | $5.5B | $3.5B | $38M |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $1M | $4.0B | $3.9B | $156M | $282M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $25M | $8.6B | $9.3B | $3.7B | $320M |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | -10.95x | 33.79x | 6.38x | 4.59x | -0.12x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
CAH leads this category, winning 3 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in MCK five years ago would be worth $37,043 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $221 for WGRX. Over the past 12 months, CAH leads with a +26.1% total return vs WGRX's -97.2%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors CAH at 31.1% vs WGRX's -71.9% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | -80.6% | -10.5% | -10.2% | -7.8% | -3.4% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | -97.2% | +7.2% | +26.1% | +2.8% | -68.0% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -97.8% | +102.1% | +125.5% | -11.3% | -87.4% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -97.8% | +270.4% | +232.0% | -14.6% | -93.3% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -97.8% | +339.0% | +158.8% | +5.8% | -86.2% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | -71.9% | +26.4% | +31.1% | -3.9% | -49.9% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — MCK and HSIC each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
MCK is the less volatile stock with a -0.02 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than OMI's 1.45 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. HSIC currently trades 79.3% from its 52-week high vs WGRX's 1.2% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 0.99x | -0.02x | 0.01x | 0.72x | 1.45x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $7.04 | $999.00 | $233.60 | $89.29 | $9.55 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $0.08 | $637.00 | $137.75 | $61.95 | $1.84 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +1.2% | +73.7% | +78.6% | +79.3% | +23.5% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 29.1 | 21.0 | 28.6 | 34.3 | 46.5 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 13.8M | 782K | 1.8M | 1.2M | 690K |
Analyst Outlook
CAH leads this category, winning 2 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: MCK as "Buy", CAH as "Buy", HSIC as "Hold", OMI as "Hold". Consensus price targets imply 596.4% upside for OMI (target: $16) vs 20.6% for HSIC (target: $85). For income investors, CAH offers the higher dividend yield at 1.11% vs MCK's 0.42%.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | — | Buy | Buy | Hold | Hold |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | — | $994.86 | $253.38 | $85.43 | $15.60 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | — | 31 | 33 | 32 | 10 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | — | +0.4% | +1.1% | — | — |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | — | 18 | 20 | 1 | 0 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | — | $3.07 | $2.04 | — | — |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | 0.0% | 0.0% | +1.8% | +10.5% | 0.0% |
CAH leads in 2 of 6 categories (Total Returns, Analyst Outlook). HSIC leads in 1 (Income & Cash Flow). 1 tied.
WGRX vs MCK vs CAH vs HSIC vs OMI: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is WGRX or MCK or CAH or HSIC or OMI a better buy right now?
For growth investors, McKesson Corporation (MCK) is the stronger pick with 12.
4% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -74. 2% for Owens & Minor, Inc. (OMI). McKesson Corporation (MCK) offers the better valuation at 19. 2x trailing P/E (16. 7x 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 has the better valuation — WGRX or MCK or CAH or HSIC or OMI?
On trailing P/E, McKesson Corporation (MCK) is the cheapest at 19.
2x versus Cardinal Health, Inc. at 28. 5x. On forward P/E, Owens & Minor, Inc. is actually cheaper at 2. 3x — 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: McKesson Corporation wins at 0. 43x versus Henry Schein, Inc. 's 4. 20x — a PEG below 1. 0 traditionally signals the market is underpricing earnings growth.
03Which is the better long-term investment — WGRX or MCK or CAH or HSIC or OMI?
Over the past 5 years, McKesson Corporation (MCK) delivered a total return of +270.
4%, compared to -97. 8% for Wellgistics Health, Inc. (WGRX). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: MCK returned +339. 0% versus WGRX's -97. 8%. 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 — WGRX or MCK or CAH or HSIC or OMI?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), McKesson Corporation (MCK) is the lower-risk stock at -0.
02β versus Owens & Minor, Inc. 's 1. 45β — meaning OMI is approximately -8947% more volatile than MCK relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Henry Schein, Inc. (HSIC) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 77% versus 4% for Wellgistics Health, Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — WGRX or MCK or CAH or HSIC or OMI?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), McKesson Corporation (MCK) is pulling ahead at 12.
4% versus -74. 2% for Owens & Minor, Inc. (OMI). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Cardinal Health, Inc. grew EPS 87. 0% year-over-year, compared to -201. 1% for Owens & Minor, Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, MCK leads at 13. 4% 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 — WGRX or MCK or CAH or HSIC or OMI?
Henry Schein, Inc.
(HSIC) is the more profitable company, earning 3. 0% net margin versus -39. 8% for Owens & Minor, Inc. — meaning it keeps 3. 0% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: HSIC leads at 5. 7% versus -33. 9% for WGRX. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — HSIC leads at 29. 1%, 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 WGRX or MCK or CAH or HSIC or OMI 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, McKesson Corporation (MCK) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 0. 43x versus Henry Schein, Inc. 's 4. 20x. A PEG below 1. 0 is traditionally considered the threshold for growth-adjusted undervaluation. On forward earnings alone, Owens & Minor, Inc. (OMI) trades at 2. 3x forward P/E versus 17. 1x for Cardinal Health, Inc. — 14. 8x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for OMI: 596. 4% to $15. 60.
08Which pays a better dividend — WGRX or MCK or CAH or HSIC or OMI?
In this comparison, CAH (1.
1% yield), MCK (0. 4% yield) pay a dividend. WGRX, HSIC, OMI do not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
09Is WGRX or MCK or CAH or HSIC or OMI better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, Cardinal Health, Inc.
(CAH) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0. 01), 1. 1% yield, +158. 8% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (CAH: +158. 8%, OMI: -86. 2%), 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 WGRX and MCK and CAH and HSIC and OMI?
Both stocks operate in the Healthcare sector, making this a peer-level intra-sector comparison — the same macro tailwinds and headwinds will affect both.
CAH pays a dividend while WGRX, MCK, HSIC, OMI 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.