Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. CI scored 71.9, ALHC scored 69.7 — CI leads.
Compare another set
CI
The Cigna Group
Healthcare Plans · Quality-Growth
71.9
$282.43 · $74.6B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
2.2
CI leads
ALHC
Alignment Healthcare, Inc.
Healthcare Plans · Quality-Growth
69.7
$7.54 · $1.6B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestCI11.7x
Fastest growthALHC+46.1%
Strongest balance sheetCI0.74
Highest qualityCI60 / 100
Largest discount to fair valueALHC-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)
CI
stronger →← stronger
ALHC
60
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
46
72
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
98
86
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
76
CI is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
CI
ALHC
$9.1bB+
FCF
$178mC
+11.3%B
Rev
+46.1%A
0.74C+
D/E
1.25C
11.7xA
P/E
47.2xC
0.77A-
PEG
0.75A-
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
CI
ALHC
53% below
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
58% below
~-10%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~-6%/yr
+94%
1-yr DCF upside
+83%
+114%
5-yr DCF upside
+137%
+145%
10-yr DCF upside
+246%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
CI
No notable signals flagged.
ALHC
Why this score
Diluting shareholders
The companies
CIThe Cigna Group
Healthcare Plans · $282.43 · beta 0.30
Why now
Healthcare Plans · market cap $74.6b. 9% off the 52-week high of $311.34. Revenue growing +11%, comfortably above the S&P median. PEG 0.77 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 24 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $342.29 (implying +21% upside).
Moat
ROE 17% is above 15% — the equity base is compounding at a rate the market struggles to discount accurately. FCF converts 142% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash. $74.6b 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 2.3% is thin — operating leverage cuts both ways; input-cost inflation or pricing pressure hits the bottom line first.
ALHCAlignment Healthcare, Inc.
Healthcare Plans · $7.54 · beta 1.14
Why now
Healthcare Plans · market cap $1.6b. Down 70% from 52-week high of $25.12 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +46% — in hypergrowth territory. PEG 0.75 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 13 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $17.15 (implying +127% upside).
Moat
ROE 20% is above 15% — the equity base is compounding at a rate the market struggles to discount accurately. Free cash flow runs well ahead of reported net income.
Risk
Down 70% from the 52-week high — the market is pricing in something the screen can't see; verify the bear case before sizing up. Trailing P/E 47x sits well above the S&P median (~20x) — multiple compression is a real risk if revenue growth decelerates. Net margin 0.9% is thin — operating leverage cuts both ways; input-cost inflation or pricing pressure hits the bottom line first.
Verdict — model-derived comparison
The model favors CI with a 77.1 score over ALHC's 69, driven by CI's superior Value pillar (89 vs. ALHC's 75) and its stronger P/E grade of A. However, a contrarian might prefer ALHC given its implied growth of -6% per year is significantly below its robust +46.1% revenue growth, suggesting substantial pessimism is priced in. Additionally, ALHC carries a "Diluting shareholders" signal, which is a caution for investors.
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 CI and ALHC diverge
On the headline score the gap is 2.2 points in favor of CI. They get there differently, though — each leads on a different pillar, so the better pick depends on which you weight.
GrowthCI 72.2 · ALHC 97.7ALHC +25.5
QualityCI 60.1 · ALHC 45.6CI +14.5
ValueCI 85.5 · ALHC 75.9CI +9.6
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 CI or ALHC the better stock?
CI scores higher: CI 71.9, ALHC 69.7 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 CI and ALHC differ most?
The widest gap is growth, where ALHC leads by 26 points on the 0–100 pillar scale. Neither name sweeps: they trade the lead across the three pillars, so the comparison is a trade-off rather than one being better on every measure.
How are CI and ALHC 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.