Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. UNH scored 65.9, OSCR scored 87.6 — OSCR leads.
Compare another set
UNH
UnitedHealth Group Incorporated
Healthcare Plans · Quality-Growth
65.9
$379.30 · $340.5B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
21.7
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
CheapestUNH23.9x
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)
UNH
stronger →← stronger
OSCR
62
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
80
84
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
95
55
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
88
OSCR is stronger on 3 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
UNH
OSCR
$23.6bA
FCF
$4.4bB
+11.8%B
Rev
+27.5%A-
0.69C+
D/E
0.23B
23.9xB+
P/E
25.9xB
1.01B+
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
UNH
OSCR
43% below
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
83% below
~-5%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
decline
+59%
1-yr DCF upside
+372%
+77%
5-yr DCF upside
+506%
+107%
10-yr DCF upside
+751%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
UNH
Why this score
Raising its dividend
OSCR
No notable signals flagged.
The companies
UNHUnitedHealth Group Incorporated
Healthcare Plans · $379.30 · beta 0.61
Why now
Healthcare Plans · market cap $340.5b. 18% off the 52-week high of $461.62. Revenue growing +12%, comfortably above the S&P median. 25 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $481.72 (implying +27% upside).
Moat
ROE 14% meets the long-run market sustainable threshold — solid but not differentiated; the durability comes from elsewhere. FCF converts 167% of net income, helped by cash released from working capital ($7.3b) that doesn't repeat every year. $340.5b market cap places it among the largest companies in the sector — distribution, R&D, and customer-acquisition costs amortize across a base peers can't replicate.
Risk
Net margin 3.1% 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 UNH by 8.7 points (76.6 to 67.9), its sharpest advantage coming in Rev (grade A-). A contrarian could still prefer UNH, which trades about 44% below our DCF fair value — a margin of safety the score doesn't reward. Note they play different roles — OSCR screens as growth, UNH screens as value — 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 UNH and OSCR diverge
On the headline score the gap is 21.7 points in favor of OSCR. The widest single difference is Value, where OSCR leads by 33.3 points.
ValueUNH 54.6 · OSCR 87.9OSCR +33.3
QualityUNH 62.4 · OSCR 80.4OSCR +18.0
GrowthUNH 83.9 · OSCR 95.3OSCR +11.4
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 UNH the better stock?
OSCR scores higher: OSCR 87.6, UNH 65.9 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 UNH differ most?
The widest gap is value, where OSCR leads by 33 points on the 0–100 pillar scale. OSCR leads all three pillars, so the gap is broad rather than a single-measure difference.
How are OSCR and UNH 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.