PANW vs. MMC
Scroll down to visually compare performance, riskiness, drawdowns, and other indicators and decide which better suits your portfolio: PANW or MMC.
|5Y Return (Ann)||25.62%||20.09%|
|10Y Return (Ann)||31.68%||18.06%|
|Daily Std Dev||40.60%||19.49%|
|Gross Profit (TTM)||$3.78B||$8.88B|
The correlation between PANW and MMC is 0.30, 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.
PANW vs. MMC - Performance Comparison
In the year-to-date period, PANW achieves a 68.01% return, which is significantly higher than MMC's 16.22% return. Over the past 10 years, PANW has outperformed MMC with an annualized return of 31.68%, while MMC has yielded a comparatively lower 18.06% annualized return. The chart below displays the growth of a $10,000 investment in both assets, with all prices adjusted for splits and dividends.
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
PANW vs. MMC - Dividend Comparison
PANW has not paid dividends to shareholders, while MMC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.30%.
PANW vs. MMC - Risk-Adjusted Performance Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Palo Alto Networks, Inc. (PANW) and Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. (MMC). 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.
PANW vs. MMC - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum PANW drawdown for the period was -19.51%, lower than the maximum MMC drawdown of -5.78%. The drawdown chart below compares losses from any high point along the way for PANW and MMC
PANW vs. MMC - Volatility Comparison
Palo Alto Networks, Inc. (PANW) has a higher volatility of 6.78% compared to Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. (MMC) at 3.62%. This indicates that PANW's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than MMC based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.