IMBBY vs. HUM

Last updated Apr 2, 2026

Compare and contrast key facts about Imperial Brands PLC (IMBBY) and Humana Inc. (HUM).

Performance

IMBBY vs. HUM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Imperial Brands PLC (IMBBY) and Humana Inc. (HUM). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

IMBBY vs. HUM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
IMBBY Imperial Brands PLC	-2.03%	38.90%	47.56%	0.53%	22.09%	14.14%	-6.19%	-10.65%	-23.41%	2.89%
HUM Humana Inc.	-30.56%	2.36%	-43.96%	-9.94%	11.15%	13.80%	12.71%	28.94%	16.27%	22.60%

Fundamentals

Market Cap IMBBY : $33.52B HUM : $21.29B
EPS IMBBY : $6.20 HUM : $9.85
PE Ratio IMBBY : 6.55 HUM : 17.97
PS Ratio IMBBY : 0.61 HUM : 0.16
PB Ratio IMBBY : 5.16 HUM : 1.21
Total Revenue (TTM) IMBBY : $54.93B HUM : $129.66B
Gross Profit (TTM) IMBBY : $14.68B HUM : $97.15B
EBITDA (TTM) IMBBY : $8.51B HUM : $2.92B

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, IMBBY achieves a -2.03% return, which is significantly higher than HUM's -30.56% return. Over the past 10 years, IMBBY has outperformed HUM with an annualized return of 4.34%, while HUM has yielded a comparatively lower 0.41% annualized return.

IMBBY

• 1D: -0.54%
• 1M: -8.11%
• YTD: -2.03%
• 6M: -0.14%
• 1Y: 15.50%
• 3Y*: 28.76%
• 5Y*: 22.48%
• 10Y*: 4.34%

HUM

• 1D: 2.05%
• 1M: -5.04%
• YTD: -30.56%
• 6M: -27.68%
• 1Y: -32.11%
• 3Y*: -27.71%
• 5Y*: -14.75%
• 10Y*: 0.41%

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

Return for Risk

IMBBY vs. HUM — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

IMBBY

IMBBY Risk / Return Rank: 61
IMBBY Sharpe Ratio Rank: 65
IMBBY Sortino Ratio Rank: 56
IMBBY Omega Ratio Rank: 56
IMBBY Calmar Ratio Rank: 62
IMBBY Martin Ratio Rank: 66

HUM

HUM Risk / Return Rank: 14
HUM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 13
HUM Sortino Ratio Rank: 16
HUM Omega Ratio Rank: 15
HUM Calmar Ratio Rank: 17
HUM Martin Ratio Rank: 11

The rank (0–100) shows how this investment's returns compare to the risk taken. Higher = better. Based on the past 12 months of data, combining Sharpe, Sortino, and other metrics used by quantitative funds and institutional investors.

IMBBY vs. HUM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Imperial Brands PLC (IMBBY) and Humana Inc. (HUM). Risk-adjusted metrics are performance indicators that assess an investment's returns in relation to its risk, enabling a more accurate comparison of different investment options.

	IMBBY	HUM	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	0.70	-0.65	+1.35
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	1.04	-0.68	+1.72
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.14	0.90	+0.24
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.98	-0.68	+1.66
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	2.83	-1.40	+4.23
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

IMBBY vs. HUM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IMBBY Sharpe Ratio is 0.70, which is higher than the HUM Sharpe Ratio of -0.65. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IMBBY and HUM, offering insights into how both investments have performed under varying market conditions. These values are calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	IMBBY	HUM	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.70	-0.65	+1.35
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	1.08	-0.41	+1.49
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.18	0.01	+0.17
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.20	0.17	+0.03

Correlation

The correlation between IMBBY and HUM is 0.14, which is considered to be low. This implies their price changes are not closely related. A low correlation is generally favorable for portfolio diversification, as it helps to reduce overall risk by spreading it across multiple assets with different performance patterns.

Dividends

IMBBY vs. HUM - Dividend Comparison

IMBBY's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 5.21%, more than HUM's 2.00% yield.

	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
IMBBY Imperial Brands PLC	5.21%	5.37%	6.04%	7.62%	7.03%	8.58%	9.92%	10.41%	7.93%	5.03%	4.54%	0.00%
HUM Humana Inc.	2.00%	1.38%	1.40%	0.77%	0.62%	0.60%	0.61%	0.60%	0.70%	0.76%	0.43%	0.64%

Drawdowns

IMBBY vs. HUM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IMBBY drawdown since its inception was -65.19%, smaller than the maximum HUM drawdown of -85.10%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IMBBY and HUM.

Drawdown Indicators

	IMBBY	HUM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-65.19%	-85.10%	+19.91%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-15.65%	-47.18%	+31.53%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-21.66%	-69.92%	+48.26%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-65.19%	-69.92%	+4.73%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-9.65%	-67.31%	+57.66%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-26.42%	-27.02%	+0.60%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	5.41%	22.87%	-17.46%

Volatility

IMBBY vs. HUM - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Imperial Brands PLC (IMBBY) is 7.48%, while Humana Inc. (HUM) has a volatility of 9.69%. This indicates that IMBBY experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than HUM based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	IMBBY	HUM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	7.48%	9.69%	-2.21%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	14.61%	38.39%	-23.78%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	22.26%	49.57%	-27.31%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	20.83%	36.25%	-15.42%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	24.21%	34.07%	-9.86%

Financials

IMBBY vs. HUM - Profitability Comparison

The chart below illustrates the profitability comparison between Imperial Brands PLC and Humana Inc. over time, highlighting three key metrics: Gross Profit Margin, Operating Margin, and Net Profit Margin.

IMBBY - Gross Margin

Gross margin is calculated as gross profit divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Apr 2026, Imperial Brands PLC reported a gross profit of 4.94B and revenue of 13.85B. Therefore, the gross margin over that period was 35.7%.

HUM - Gross Margin

Gross margin is calculated as gross profit divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Apr 2026, Humana Inc. reported a gross profit of 0.00 and revenue of 32.52B. Therefore, the gross margin over that period was 0.0%.

IMBBY - Operating Margin

Operating margin is calculated as operating income divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Apr 2026, Imperial Brands PLC reported an operating income of 3.02B and revenue of 13.85B, resulting in an operating margin of 21.8%.

HUM - Operating Margin

Operating margin is calculated as operating income divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Apr 2026, Humana Inc. reported an operating income of -808.00M and revenue of 32.52B, resulting in an operating margin of -2.5%.

IMBBY - Net Margin

Net margin is calculated as net income divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Apr 2026, Imperial Brands PLC reported a net income of 1.70B and revenue of 13.85B, resulting in a net margin of 12.2%.

HUM - Net Margin

Net margin is calculated as net income divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Apr 2026, Humana Inc. reported a net income of -796.00M and revenue of 32.52B, resulting in a net margin of -2.5%.