Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. CI scored 71.9, OSCR scored 87.6 — OSCR leads.
Compare another set
CI
The Cigna Group
Healthcare Plans · Quality-Growth
71.9
$282.43 · $74.6B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
15.7
OSCR leads
OSCR
Oscar Health, Inc.
Healthcare Plans · Quality-Growth
87.6
$33.37 · $10.3B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestCI11.7x
Fastest growthOSCR+27.5%
Strongest balance sheetOSCR0.23
Highest qualityOSCR80 / 100
Largest discount to fair valueOSCR-83%
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
OSCR
60
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
80
72
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
95
86
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
88
OSCR is stronger on 3 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
CI
OSCR
$9.1bB+
FCF
$4.4bB
+11.3%B
Rev
+27.5%A-
0.74C+
D/E
0.23B
11.7xA
P/E
25.9xB
0.77A-
PEG
1.96C+
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
OSCR
53% below
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
83% below
~-10%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
decline
+94%
1-yr DCF upside
+372%
+114%
5-yr DCF upside
+506%
+145%
10-yr DCF upside
+751%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
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.
OSCROscar Health, Inc.
Healthcare Plans · $33.37 · beta 2.47
Why now
Healthcare Plans · market cap $10.3b. 3% off the 52-week high of $34.48. Revenue growing +27% — in hypergrowth territory. 10 sell-side analysts rate this a Hold with a mean 1-yr target of $35.40 (implying +6% upside).
Moat
ROE 34% — top-decile capital efficiency. Either pricing leverage, low capital intensity, or aggressive buybacks; the durability story depends on which. Free cash flow runs well ahead of reported net income, mostly because of cash released from working capital ($3.7b) — a release that doesn't repeat every year the way earnings can.
Risk
Beta 2.47 implies above-market volatility — position-size to the drawdowns this name will produce in a market correction, not to its bull-case return. Net margin 3.6% is thin — operating leverage cuts both ways; input-cost inflation or pricing pressure hits the bottom line first.
Verdict — model-derived comparison
OSCR leads CI by 0.8 points (76.6 to 75.8), its sharpest advantage coming in Rev (grade A-). A contrarian could still prefer CI, which trades about 56% below our DCF fair value — a margin of safety the score doesn't reward. Note they play different roles — CI screens as value, OSCR screens as growth — so the model rewards different traits for each.
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 CI and OSCR diverge
On the headline score the gap is 15.7 points in favor of OSCR. The widest single difference is Growth, where OSCR leads by 23.1 points.
GrowthCI 72.2 · OSCR 95.3OSCR +23.1
QualityCI 60.1 · OSCR 80.4OSCR +20.3
ValueCI 85.5 · OSCR 87.9level
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 OSCR or CI the better stock?
OSCR scores higher: OSCR 87.6, CI 71.9 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 OSCR and CI differ most?
The widest gap is growth, where OSCR leads by 23 points on the 0–100 pillar scale. OSCR also leads quality, while value is effectively level between them.
How are OSCR and CI 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.