COMPARE · Data as of August 24, 2026
CI vs OSCR
Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. CI scored 76.7, OSCR scored 70.4 — CI leads.
Compare another set
CI
The Cigna Group
76.7
$280.45 · $74.1B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
6.3
CI leads
OSCR
Oscar Health, Inc.
70.4
$31.81 · $9.8B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
- CheapestCI11.6x
- Fastest growthOSCR+27.5%
- Strongest balance sheetOSCR0.23
- Highest qualityOSCR79 / 100
- Largest discount to fair valueOSCR-76%
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
79
85
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
95
88
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
46
OSCR is stronger on 2 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
11.6xA
P/E
24.5xB+
0.83B+
PEG
3.26D
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
52% below
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
76% below
~-11%/yr
Growth the price implies10-yr FCF · lower = less priced in
decline
+93%
1-yr DCF upside
+300%
+110%
5-yr DCF upside
+322%
+138%
10-yr DCF upside
+352%
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
CI
Why this score
- Raising its dividend
OSCR
No notable signals flagged.
The companies
CIThe Cigna Group
Why now
Healthcare Plans · market cap $74.1b. 11% off the 52-week high of $315.47. Revenue growing +11%, comfortably above the S&P median. PEG 0.83 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 24 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $341.42 (implying +22% upside).
Moat
ROE 17% sits above Buffett's preferred 15% threshold — 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, a sign that working capital and capex are well-disciplined. $74.1b 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.
Why now
Healthcare Plans · market cap $9.8b. 5% off the 52-week high of $33.55. Revenue growing +27% — in hypergrowth territory. 10 sell-side analysts rate this a Hold with a mean 1-yr target of $30.40 (implying -4% 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 — non-cash charges (depreciation, intangible amortization) are holding down GAAP earnings while cash generation stays strong.
Risk
Beta 2.38 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
CI leads OSCR by 6.3 points (76.7 to 70.4), its sharpest advantage coming in PEG (grade B+). A contrarian could still prefer OSCR, which trades about 76% 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 6.3 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.
- ValueCI 88.2 · OSCR 46.2CI +42.0
- QualityCI 60.1 · OSCR 79.3OSCR +19.2
- GrowthCI 85.2 · OSCR 95.3OSCR +10.1
Pillars run 0–100 against sector peers, so a 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.