The structural profiles are close, with Humana carrying a narrow edge on profitability. Universal Health Services still has the edge on valuation, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. On the market side, Humana is in better shape — its trend is intact while Universal Health Services's trend has broken down. That puts structure and market broadly in agreement — Humana's lead looks more confirmed than conflicted.
The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels. Both peer scores are relative to the S&P 500 universe, making them directly comparable.
The clearest separation starts in profitability, with growth adding a second layer of support.
This pair is matched through long-term financial trajectory similarity within the selected peer universe.
The pair sits on a clearly comparable long-term path, though it is not a near-twin match.
The match is driven mainly by revenue stability and margin consistency.
Scores reflect position relative to comparable companies with similar long-term financial trajectories.
The largest gaps do not all point in the same direction.
Left means cheaper relative valuation. Higher means stronger structure.
Humana Inc. still looks stronger overall, though current pricing looks more supportive for Universal Health Services, Inc..
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
Where HUM and UHS each sit in their own 5-year price and valuation history.
Describes historical entry positioning only. Descriptive — not investment advice.
Capital efficiency adds support, with a 4.3-point ROIC advantage.
Absolute pricing still looks more supportive for Universal Health Services, with a forward P/E that is 13.2 turns lower there.
Profitability points more clearly to Humana Inc., but valuation and current pricing keep the broader result mixed.
Break down the HUM vs UHS comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how HUM and UHS each compare against other companies in their peer groups.
Rule-based, descriptive analysis only. Derived from peer percentile dimensions. Not investment advice. Peer groups are determined algorithmically based on structural similarity — not by sector classification alone.
AssetNext scores reflect each company's structural position within its functional peer group — not a ranking against all stocks simultaneously. Peers are identified by similarity across eight financial dimensions, including revenue growth trajectory, margin structure, capital intensity, and earnings stability. A score of 75 means the company ranks in the top quartile within its own peer group, not the entire market.
Four dimension scores drive the overall peer score: Growth (revenue trajectory and expansion dynamics), Quality (margin structure and capital efficiency), Valuation (peer-relative pricing on standard multiples), and Stability (earnings consistency and financial predictability). Each dimension is scored 0–100 relative to the peer group, then combined into an overall peer score using equal weighting.
Because scores are peer-relative, the same company can have slightly different scores in different index universes. On comparison pages, both companies are shown within their shared peer universe wherever possible — so the scores are directly comparable. The peer basis is stated on each score card.
Scores are recalculated periodically as underlying financial data is updated. All analysis is descriptive and rule-based — AssetNext describes structural realities and never issues buy, sell or hold recommendations.