Financial - Capital Markets
Build Your Comparison
Side-by-side financial analysisStock Comparison
NAKA vs UNH vs CVS vs TDOC vs KO
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Medical - Healthcare Plans
Medical - Healthcare Plans
Medical - Healthcare Information Services
Beverages - Non-Alcoholic
NAKA vs UNH vs CVS vs TDOC vs KO — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Financial - Capital Markets | Medical - Healthcare Plans | Medical - Healthcare Plans | Medical - Healthcare Information Services | Beverages - Non-Alcoholic |
| Market Cap | $79M | $373.09B | $128.46B | $1.35B | $348.25B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $4M | $449.71B | $407.90B | $2.51B | $49.28B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $-290M | $12.04B | $2.93B | $-171M | $13.70B |
| Gross Margin | -376.0% | 18.8% | 13.9% | 65.6% | 61.7% |
| Operating Margin | -82.2% | 4.2% | 1.5% | -7.6% | 29.3% |
| Forward P/E | — | 22.4x | 13.6x | — | 24.7x |
| Total Debt | $210M | $78.39B | $93.59B | $1.04B | $45.49B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $23M | $24.36B | $8.51B | $781M | $10.27B |
NAKA vs UNH vs CVS vs TDOC vs KO — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | May 24 | Jun 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nakamoto Inc. (NAKA) | 100 | 3.7 | -96.3% |
| UnitedHealth Group … (UNH) | 100 | 83.0 | -17.0% |
| CVS Health Corporat… (CVS) | 100 | 168.9 | +68.9% |
| Teladoc Health, Inc. (TDOC) | 100 | 66.4 | -33.6% |
| The Coca-Cola Compa… (KO) | 100 | 128.6 | +28.6% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: NAKA vs UNH vs CVS vs TDOC vs KO
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
NAKA lags the leaders in this set but could rank higher in a more targeted comparison.
UNH ranks third and is worth considering specifically for growth exposure.
- Rev growth 11.8%, EPS growth -14.7%, 3Y rev CAGR 11.4%
- 11.8% revenue growth vs NAKA's -33.0%
CVS carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for income & stability and sleep-well-at-night.
- Dividend streak 0 yrs, beta 0.19, yield 2.7%
- Lower volatility, beta 0.19, current ratio 0.84x
- Beta 0.19, yield 2.7%, current ratio 0.84x
- Lower P/E (13.6x vs 24.7x)
Among these 5 stocks, TDOC doesn't own a clear edge in any measured category.
KO is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if long-term compounding is your priority.
- 118.2% 10Y total return vs UNH's 241.6%
- 27.8% margin vs NAKA's -74.0%
- 13.1% ROA vs NAKA's -56.5%, ROIC 15.8% vs -42.1%
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 11.8% revenue growth vs NAKA's -33.0% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (13.6x vs 24.7x) | |
| Quality / Margins | 27.8% margin vs NAKA's -74.0% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.19 vs NAKA's 2.88 | |
| Dividends | 2.7% yield, vs KO's 2.5%, (2 stocks pay no dividend) | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +52.6% vs NAKA's -99.3% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 13.1% ROA vs NAKA's -56.5%, ROIC 15.8% vs -42.1% |
NAKA vs UNH vs CVS vs TDOC vs KO — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
NAKA vs UNH vs CVS vs TDOC vs KO — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 5 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
KO leads in 2 of 6 categories
CVS leads 2 • NAKA leads 0 • UNH leads 0 • TDOC leads 0 • 2 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
KO leads this category, winning 3 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
UNH is the larger business by revenue, generating $449.7B annually — 114732.7x NAKA's $4M. KO is the more profitable business, keeping 27.8% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to NAKA's -74.0%. On growth, NAKA holds the edge at +3.6% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $4M | $449.7B | $407.9B | $2.5B | $49.3B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | -$320M | $23.2B | $10.5B | $42M | $15.5B |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | -$290M | $12.0B | $2.9B | -$171M | $13.7B |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | -$46M | $19.7B | $7.4B | $251M | $12.6B |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | -3.8% | +18.8% | +13.9% | +65.6% | +61.7% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | -82.2% | +4.2% | +1.5% | -7.6% | +29.3% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | -74.0% | +2.7% | +0.7% | -6.8% | +27.8% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | -11.7% | +4.4% | +1.8% | +10.0% | +25.5% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +3.6% | +2.0% | +6.2% | -2.5% | +12.1% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -88.4% | +0.7% | +63.1% | +32.1% | +18.2% |
Valuation Metrics
CVS leads this category, winning 3 of 6 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 26.6x trailing earnings, KO trades at a 63% valuation discount to CVS's 72.4x P/E. On an enterprise value basis, CVS's 14.2x EV/EBITDA is more attractive than KO's 25.9x.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $79M | $373.1B | $128.5B | $1.3B | $348.2B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $266M | $427.1B | $213.5B | $1.6B | $383.5B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | -0.43x | 31.07x | 72.43x | -6.54x | 26.62x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | — | 22.35x | 13.61x | — | 24.75x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | — | — | — | 2.38x |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | — | 18.31x | 14.24x | 16.02x | 25.89x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 43.19x | 0.83x | 0.32x | 0.53x | 7.26x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 0.10x | 3.68x | 1.70x | 0.95x | 10.18x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | — | 23.21x | 16.45x | 4.72x | 65.76x |
Profitability & Efficiency
KO leads this category, winning 6 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
KO delivers a 41.1% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $41 in annual profit, vs $-85 for NAKA. NAKA carries lower financial leverage with a 0.41x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to KO's 1.33x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), KO scores 7/9 vs NAKA's 2/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | -84.8% | +11.5% | +3.9% | -12.4% | +41.1% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | -56.5% | +3.9% | +1.1% | -5.9% | +13.1% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | -42.1% | +9.2% | +5.0% | -11.5% | +15.8% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | -76.2% | +9.7% | +6.1% | -10.0% | +17.3% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 2 | 6 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.41x | 0.77x | 1.24x | 0.75x | 1.33x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $187M | $54.0B | $85.1B | $259M | $35.2B |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $23M | $24.4B | $8.5B | $781M | $10.3B |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $210M | $78.4B | $93.6B | $1.0B | $45.5B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | -24.72x | 4.71x | 2.11x | -8.76x | 10.70x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
CVS leads this category, winning 4 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in KO five years ago would be worth $16,313 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $374 for NAKA. Over the past 12 months, CVS leads with a +52.6% total return vs NAKA's -99.3%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors CVS at 16.0% vs NAKA's -66.6% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | -72.3% | +23.5% | +27.3% | +5.8% | +18.6% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | -99.3% | +37.2% | +52.6% | +6.3% | +17.7% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -96.3% | -6.0% | +56.2% | -70.4% | +42.6% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -96.3% | +12.6% | +32.3% | -95.1% | +63.1% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -96.3% | +241.6% | +27.9% | -42.8% | +118.2% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | -66.6% | -2.0% | +16.0% | -33.4% | +12.6% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — UNH and KO each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
KO is the less volatile stock with a -0.20 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than NAKA's 2.88 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. UNH currently trades 98.8% from its 52-week high vs NAKA's 0.7% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 2.88x | 0.61x | 0.19x | 1.85x | -0.20x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $679.20 | $415.96 | $102.77 | $9.77 | $84.04 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $0.38 | $234.60 | $58.50 | $4.40 | $65.35 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +0.7% | +98.8% | +98.0% | +76.4% | +96.3% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 35.4 | 67.9 | 74.7 | 59.0 | 60.8 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 274K | 7.2M | 7.5M | 4.4M | 12.7M |
Analyst Outlook
Evenly matched — CVS and KO each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: NAKA as "Buy", UNH as "Buy", CVS as "Buy", TDOC as "Hold", KO as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 77.0% upside for NAKA (target: $8) vs -0.8% for TDOC (target: $7). For income investors, CVS offers the higher dividend yield at 2.65% vs UNH's 2.12%.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Buy | Buy | Buy | Hold | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $8.00 | $418.50 | $103.64 | $7.40 | $86.13 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 2 | 52 | 41 | 42 | 48 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | — | +2.1% | +2.7% | — | +2.5% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 0 | 16 | 0 | — | 56 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | — | $8.70 | $2.67 | — | $2.04 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | +0.4% | +1.5% | 0.0% | 0.0% | +0.2% |
KO leads in 2 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow, Profitability & Efficiency). CVS leads in 2 (Valuation Metrics, Total Returns). 2 tied.
NAKA vs UNH vs CVS vs TDOC vs KO: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is NAKA or UNH or CVS or TDOC or KO a better buy right now?
For growth investors, UnitedHealth Group Incorporated (UNH) is the stronger pick with 11.
8% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -33. 0% for Nakamoto Inc. (NAKA). The Coca-Cola Company (KO) offers the better valuation at 26. 6x trailing P/E (24. 7x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Nakamoto Inc. (NAKA) a "Buy" — based on 2 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 — NAKA or UNH or CVS or TDOC or KO?
On trailing P/E, The Coca-Cola Company (KO) is the cheapest at 26.
6x versus CVS Health Corporation at 72. 4x. On forward P/E, CVS Health Corporation is actually cheaper at 13. 6x — notably different from the trailing picture, reflecting expected earnings growth.
03Which is the better long-term investment — NAKA or UNH or CVS or TDOC or KO?
Over the past 5 years, The Coca-Cola Company (KO) delivered a total return of +63.
1%, compared to -96. 3% for Nakamoto Inc. (NAKA). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: UNH returned +241. 6% versus NAKA's -96. 3%. 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 — NAKA or UNH or CVS or TDOC or KO?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), The Coca-Cola Company (KO) is the lower-risk stock at -0.
20β versus Nakamoto Inc. 's 2. 88β — meaning NAKA is approximately -1540% more volatile than KO relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Nakamoto Inc. (NAKA) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 41% versus 133% for The Coca-Cola Company — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — NAKA or UNH or CVS or TDOC or KO?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), UnitedHealth Group Incorporated (UNH) is pulling ahead at 11.
8% versus -33. 0% for Nakamoto Inc. (NAKA). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Teladoc Health, Inc. grew EPS 80. 6% year-over-year, compared to -1452. 2% for Nakamoto Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, UNH leads at 11. 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 — NAKA or UNH or CVS or TDOC or KO?
The Coca-Cola Company (KO) is the more profitable company, earning 27.
3% net margin versus -28. 7% for Nakamoto Inc. — meaning it keeps 27. 3% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: KO leads at 28. 7% versus -108. 2% for NAKA. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — TDOC leads at 69. 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.
07Is NAKA or UNH or CVS or TDOC or KO more undervalued right now?
On forward earnings alone, CVS Health Corporation (CVS) trades at 13.
6x forward P/E versus 24. 7x for The Coca-Cola Company — 11. 1x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for NAKA: 77. 0% to $8. 00.
08Which pays a better dividend — NAKA or UNH or CVS or TDOC or KO?
In this comparison, CVS (2.
7% yield), KO (2. 5% yield), UNH (2. 1% yield) pay a dividend. NAKA, TDOC do not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
09Is NAKA or UNH or CVS or TDOC or KO better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, The Coca-Cola Company (KO) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β -0.
20), 2. 5% yield, +118. 2% 10Y return). Nakamoto Inc. (NAKA) carries a higher beta of 2. 88 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (KO: +118. 2%, NAKA: -96. 3%), 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 NAKA and UNH and CVS and TDOC and KO?
These companies operate in different sectors (NAKA (Financial Services) and UNH (Healthcare) and CVS (Healthcare) and TDOC (Healthcare) and KO (Consumer Defensive)), which means they face different economic cycles, regulatory environments, and macro sensitivities — making direct comparison nuanced.
UNH, CVS, KO pay a dividend while NAKA, TDOC 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.
You Might Also Compare
Based on how these companies actually compete and overlap — not just which sector they're filed under.