Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. CAH scored 66.2, MCK scored 74.2 — MCK leads.
Compare another set
CAH
Cardinal Health, Inc.
Medical Distribution · Quality-Growth
66.2
$237.57 · $55.0B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
8.0
MCK leads
MCK
McKesson Corporation
Medical Distribution · Quality-Growth
74.2
$938.84 · $109.5B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestMCK25.2x
Fastest growthCAH+14.2%
Highest qualityMCK81 / 100
Largest discount to fair valueCAH-58%
Side by side · every name on one set of axes
Growth against the P/E multiple. Up and to the right is cheaper and faster — the quality-growth idea in one picture. Points beyond the axis are pinned to the edge and marked off-scale rather than allowed to compress everything else.
The model, pillar by pillar (0–100 each)
CAH
stronger →← stronger
MCK
68
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
81
79
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
82
54
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
62
MCK is stronger on 3 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
CAH
MCK
$4.5bB
FCF
$6.1bB+
+14.2%B+
Rev
+12.4%B+
Negative equity
D/E
Negative equity
32.9xC+
P/E
25.2xB
1.20B+
PEG
1.75C+
Winner per row is the stronger grade; where grades tie, the better figure breaks it. A true tie or a missing value shows no highlight.
Valuation · DCF cross-check
CAH
MCK
58% below
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
1% below
~-12%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~8%/yr
+116%
1-yr DCF upside
-10%
+141%
5-yr DCF upside
+1%
+184%
10-yr DCF upside
+18%
These two disagree on this pair: the Value pillar ranks cheapness against sector peers, while price-vs-fair-value is an absolute read. A name can be the better value in its sector and still the dearer one on cash flows.
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
CAH
Why this score
Buying back stock
MCK
Why this score
Buying back stock
Raising its dividend
Durable high returns
The companies
CAHCardinal Health, Inc.
Medical Distribution · $237.57 · beta 0.50
Why now
Medical Distribution · market cap $55.0b. 8% off the 52-week high of $258.30. Revenue growing +14%, comfortably above the S&P median. 15 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $270.33 (implying +14% upside).
Moat
Free cash flow runs well ahead of reported net income, mostly because of cash released from working capital ($1.7b) — a release that doesn't repeat every year the way earnings can. $55.0b market cap gives the company enough scale to absorb fixed costs that subscale competitors can't, without yet being so large that growth has to come from acquisition.
Risk
Trailing P/E 33x sits well above the S&P median (~20x) — multiple compression is a real risk if revenue growth decelerates. Net margin 0.7% is thin — operating leverage cuts both ways; input-cost inflation or pricing pressure hits the bottom line first.
MCKMcKesson Corporation
Medical Distribution · $938.84 · beta 0.30
Why now
Medical Distribution · market cap $109.5b. 6% off the 52-week high of $999.00. Revenue growing +12%, comfortably above the S&P median. 12 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $980.67 (implying +4% upside).
Moat
FCF converts 134% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash. $109.5b market cap gives the company enough scale to absorb fixed costs that subscale competitors can't, without yet being so large that growth has to come from acquisition.
Risk
Net margin 1.1% is thin — operating leverage cuts both ways; input-cost inflation or pricing pressure hits the bottom line first.
Verdict — model-derived comparison
MCK leads CAH by 0.4 points (70.2 to 69.8), its sharpest advantage coming in FCF (grade B+). A contrarian could still prefer CAH, which trades about 59% below our DCF fair value — a margin of safety the score doesn't reward.
Our AI analyst is busy right now, so this verdict is drawn directly from the pillars, grades and DCF above.
Not investment advice. The Bull Rankings publishes a quantitative ranking model and accompanying analysis for general informational purposes only. Nothing on this page is a recommendation to buy, sell, or hold any security; nothing is personalized to your circumstances, risk tolerance, or tax situation. Investing carries the risk of loss — invest at your own risk and consider consulting a licensed financial professional before acting on anything you read here. See terms and methodology for full disclosures.
Where CAH and MCK diverge
On the headline score the gap is 8.0 points in favor of MCK. The widest single difference is Quality, where MCK leads by 12.7 points.
QualityCAH 68.5 · MCK 81.2MCK +12.7
ValueCAH 53.6 · MCK 61.6MCK +8.0
GrowthCAH 79.2 · MCK 81.7level
Pillars run 0–100. Value is judged against each company's own sector, so a Value score is a statement about a company relative to its own industry rather than to the other name here. A wide Value gap usually means the market already prices the difference in quality or growth — which is the trade-off this comparison comes down to.
Common questions
Is MCK or CAH the better stock?
MCK scores higher: MCK 74.2, CAH 66.2 out of 100 on the Bull Rankings quality-growth score, which blends business quality, growth and valuation into one number. A higher score means a stronger business at a more reasonable price — it is not a price target or a recommendation.
Where do MCK and CAH differ most?
The widest gap is quality, where MCK leads by 13 points on the 0–100 pillar scale. MCK also leads value, while growth is effectively level between them.
How are MCK and CAH scored?
Each carries the same 0–100 quality-growth score used everywhere on the site, built from three pillars — quality (profitability and returns on capital), growth (revenue and earnings), and value (what you pay for them) — combined as a geometric mean, so a weak pillar cannot be papered over by a strong one.
How current is this comparison?
The whole universe is re-scored every trading day after the US market close, so the scores and fundamentals here reflect the latest published edition.