Bringing the fundamentals into focus…
Back to Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc.
How Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. stacks up
MRSH · against 19 other Financial Services companies of similar size
Growth
39/ 100
Near the bottom of its peers.
Ranked #20 of 20 · scores higher than 0% of peers
Bars: peers in each 10-point band of the growth score1 peers with a growth score of 30–39, including MRSH · Click a bar to see the companies
Why growth scores 39?
Weighted metrics compared with all Financial Services companies.Mainly because of its earnings per share growth, which is weaker than most Financial Services peers.
- slower growth in earnings per share: weaker than 62% of peers. Earnings per share growth: 0.9% vs peer median 10.0%
- 3-year revenue growth is close to the peer norm. 3-year revenue growth: 8.6% vs peer median 10.0%
- Revenue growth is close to the peer norm. Revenue growth: 7.6% vs peer median 7.4%
Metric by metric
Position: dot = MRSH, ranked from the worst peer (left) to the best (right); tick = middle, shaded = middle half of peers.| Metric | MRSH | Peer median | Better than | Position among peers | Weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue growthHigher is better · 20 reported | 7.6% | 10.7% | 42% | 33% | |
| Earnings per share growthHigher is better · 20 reported | 0.9% | 20.7% | 16% | 33% | |
| 3-year revenue growthHigher is better · 19 reported | 8.6% | 11.9% | 17% | 33% |
Ranking by growth score
Top 5 and the companies ranked around MRSH| Rank | Company | Market cap | Growth | Overall |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 88.7B USD | 84 | 39 | |
| 2 | 477.0B HKD (≈$61.1B) | 75 | 60 | |
| 3 | 81.4B USD | 72 | 54 | |
| 4 | 6.04T INR (≈$72.4B) | 70 | 60 | |
| 5 | 43.6B GBP (≈$56.7B) | 69 | 48 | |
| 16 | 67.1B USD | 51 | 51 | |
| 17 | 128.0B USD | 49 | 61 | |
| 18 | 109.3B USD | 44 | 53 | |
| 18 | 56.1B EUR (≈$61.7B) | 44 | 53 | |
| 20 | 97.2B USD | 39 | 44 |
Scores are sector-relative percentiles from the latest snapshot, always calculated against the whole sector: narrowing the comparison group changes who you compare with, not the scores. Missing metrics are left out and the remaining weights rescaled. How we score