Marsh McLennan vs Willis Towers Watson
Add, change or remove companies; up to four.
KIRA’s take AI analyst
I put Marsh McLennan and Willis Towers Watson side by side, using each one’s latest annual report. Here is what stands out:
- Marsh McLennan is the larger business, with $27.0B of revenue in fiscal 2025 against $9.7B for Willis Towers Watson, about 2.8 times as much.
- Marsh McLennan grew revenue faster (10.3%, against −2.2%).
- Marsh McLennan turned more of its sales into free cash flow (18.5% FCF margin, against 15.9%).
- Marsh McLennan earned a higher return on the capital invested in it (15.0%, against 12.8%).
- Investors pay more for each dollar of Marsh McLennan’s earnings: a P/E of 23.3x against 20.1x for Willis Towers Watson.
Who comes out ahead
Of the 10 measures where higher (or lower) is clearly better, how many each company leads.
Marsh McLennan
MRSH
6/10
Revenue growth5-year growthOperating marginFCF marginReturn on capitalReturn on equity
Willis Towers Watson
WTW
4/10
Net marginPiotroski F-scoreNet debt / EBITDAShare count change
Side by side
Best in the row
| Latest fiscal year | MRSH FY25 | WTW FY25 |
|---|---|---|
| Size | ||
| Market cap | $93.3B | $30.5B |
| Revenue | $27.0B | $9.7B |
| Free cash flow | $5.0B | $1.5B |
| Net income | $4.2B | $1.6B |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth | 10.3% | −2.2% |
| 5-year growth | 9.4% | 2.4% |
| Share count change | −0.4% | −2.9% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | — | — |
| Operating margin | 23.1% | 23.0% |
| Net margin | 15.4% | 16.5% |
| FCF margin | 18.5% | 15.9% |
| Return on capital | 15.0% | 12.8% |
| Return on equity | 28.8% | 20.2% |
| Balance sheet | ||
| Net debt | $16.9B | $6.5B |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 2.6x | 2.5x |
| Dividends and buybacks | $3.7B | $2.0B |
| Valuation & quality | ||
| P/E | 23.3x | 20.1x |
| Piotroski F-score | 5 | 7 |
Ten years
Revenue
Operating margin
Free cash flow
Return on capital
Each company's latest fiscal year; fiscal years end in different months. The best value in each row is highlighted where higher (or lower) is clearly better. Not investment advice.