Compare price, profitability, solvency, and SEC-reported financials side by side—before deciding which assumptions deserve a closer look.
Decision snapshot: UL stock price vs MRK: inconclusive Relative valuation is incomplete for this pair. Review the available filing metrics before drawing a conclusion.
Quick read
Each company valued on the other's multiple, then compared with the market price.
Implied fair value · at MRK's multiple
Needs MRK P/E.
Implied fair value · at UL's multiple
Needs UL P/E.
Price unavailable
Metric by metric
Where each company leads, and how wide the gap is.
Growth lag
Reported gross margin
Operating income + D&A
Lower is better
Not comparable
Lower leverage
Statements
Annual statements in reported currencies, with calculations and source evidence.
Values retain reported currencies and share bases. Select a figure to inspect its period, calculation and filing inputs. Differences require compatible units and periods.
Explore enterprise value and market valuation multiples in the valuation sections.
Trendline
Eight period-end years of reported revenue, earnings, and margins. Periods and currencies are shown with the data.
Price framework
USD market cap plus reported borrowing debt, less cash and equivalents. This EV proxy excludes investments, preferred stock and noncontrolling-interest adjustments.
USD conversion input: 1 EUR = 1.121400 USD. FX date unavailable.
Complete market value, debt and cash evidence is required for enterprise value.
Complete market value, debt and cash evidence is required for enterprise value.
Price framework
The same filing-backed model used on each company's valuation page, with company-specific inputs and calculated scenarios.
UNILEVER PLC · implied price per share
Five annual free-cash-flow observations are required for the filing-backed baseline.
Merck & Co., Inc. · implied price per share
Bear
$49.07
Base
$60.10
Bull
$74.45
Balance sheet health
Inspect reported liquidity and leverage alongside historical financial-health checks.
Financial strength on a 0–9 scale.
Bankruptcy-risk signal from balance sheet and earnings power.
Not enough data to score either balance sheet.
Comparable set
Where the pair sits against the wider comparable set.
Keep comparing
Open adjacent comparisons from the same industry to pressure-test the read across multiple pairs.
PROCTER & GAMBLE Co
UL vs PG
COLGATE PALMOLIVE CO
UL vs CL
JOHNSON & JOHNSON
UL vs JNJ
KIMBERLY CLARK CORP
UL vs KMB
CHURCH & DWIGHT CO INC /DE/
UL vs CHD
Pfizer Inc.
UL vs PFE
Eli Lilly and Company
UL vs LLY
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company
UL vs BMY
AbbVie Inc.
UL vs ABBV
AMGEN INC
UL vs AMGN
Cash excludes investments. EBITDA is an operating-income-plus-D&A proxy. Missing borrowing categories remain unavailable; select a value to inspect its inputs.
LLM-powered synthesis
An explanation of the financial evidence. Check its snapshot date against the figures above.
This explanation uses an earlier data snapshot or evidence version. Review its generation date and the current figures, or refresh after signing in.
If you believe UL can reverse its negative revenue growth and stabilize margins while reducing leverage, then the current price can be justified as a relative-value entry point because the stock is cheaper on P/E and P/S than MRK; otherwise, the weak fundamentals and 4.0x net debt/EBITDA argue against paying for a re-rating.
UL trades at 12.8x P/E versus MRK at 17.6x and 2.4x P/S versus 4.9x, which suggests UL is cheaper on standard earnings and sales multiples. However, UL’s growth and profitability profile is materially weaker, while its EV/EBITDA is actually higher than MRK’s, limiting the case for a simple discount re-rating.
Supporting Metrics
