Healthcare investors often weigh the growth potential of medical technology against the stability of diversified health services. Deciding between Abbott Laboratories (ABT +1.16%) and UnitedHealth Group (UNH -1.62%) requires comparing two very different business models.

Collapse

ABT & UNH: Performance Comparison

Key Financial Metrics

ABT – Abbott Laboratories

$103.70

+1.16% (+$1.19)

UNH – UnitedHealth Group

$418.09

–1.62% (–$6.89)

Market Cap

$179B

52wk Range

$81.97 – $132.03

Gross Margin

59.63%

P/E Ratio

38.29

EPS (TTM)

$2.71

Dividend & Yield

$2.52 (2.43%)

Market Cap

$375B

52wk Range

$255.97 – $461.62

P/E Ratio

23.86

EPS (TTM)

$17.52

Dividend & Yield

$9.06 (2.17%)

ABT – Abbott Laboratories

$103.70

+1.16% (+$1.19)

Market Cap

$179B

52wk Range

$81.97 – $132.03

Gross Margin

59.63%

P/E Ratio

38.29

EPS (TTM)

$2.71

Dividend & Yield

$2.52 (2.43%)

UNH – UnitedHealth Group

$418.09

–1.62% (–$6.89)

Market Cap

$375B

52wk Range

$255.97 – $461.62

P/E Ratio

23.86

EPS (TTM)

$17.52

Dividend & Yield

$9.06 (2.17%)

Abbott focuses on scientific innovation in diagnostics and medical devices, while UnitedHealth manages the massive administrative and insurance infrastructure of the modern healthcare system. Both companies offer significant scale but face unique regulatory and operational hurdles. This comparison helps clarify which stock better fits your specific goals for income or growth in 2026.

The case for Abbott Laboratories

Abbott Laboratories generates revenue from four primary areas: medical devices, diagnostics, nutritional products, and generic pharmaceuticals. It serves a broad range of customers including hospitals, pharmacies, and government agencies through programs like Medicaid and WIC. The company is currently working to diversify its diagnostic capabilities through the pending acquisition of Exact Sciences. This expansion into the cancer diagnostics market signals a shift toward higher-growth specialty testing.

In its latest annual report, covering FY 2025, revenue reached about $44.3 billion, representing growth of approximately 6% over the prior year. Despite the top-line increase, net income fell to roughly $6.5 billion compared to $13.4 billion in the previous fiscal year. This decrease in profitability was largely influenced by a $385 million settlement related to government program allegations. The company maintained a net margin of approximately 14.7% during this period.

As of its December 2025 balance sheet, the company maintains a debt-to-equity ratio of nearly 0.3x. This ratio, which measures total debt against shareholder equity, indicates a relatively conservative debt load. The current ratio, which compares short-term assets to short-term liabilities, is roughly 1.6x. During FY 2025, the business generated free cash flow of approximately $7.4 billion. This figure represents the cash remaining after the company pays for its operations and capital expenditures. Abbott’s presence among medical device stocks remains a core driver of this cash generation.

The case for UnitedHealth

UnitedHealth Group operates a dual-pronged business model through its UnitedHealthcare insurance arm and its Optum health services division. UnitedHealthcare provides coverage to millions of individuals, employers, and government beneficiaries through Medicare and Medicaid. The company is heavily dependent on government-funded programs, with premiums from Medicaid and Medicare representing 44% of total consolidated revenue in 2025. Customer concentration like this adds a layer of risk to the business if reimbursement rates or policy priorities change. Optum provides health services through data analytics, pharmacy care, and direct clinical delivery.

In its latest annual report, covering FY 2025, the company reported revenue of approximately $447.6 billion, an increase of nearly 12% year over year. Net income for the period was roughly $12.1 billion, which was a decrease from the $14.4 billion reported in the prior fiscal year. This resulted in a net margin of approximately 2.7% for the year. Higher medical costs and disruptions in service contributed to the lower profit levels.

Based on its December 2025 balance sheet, the debt-to-equity ratio is roughly 0.8x. This measure of total debt against shareholder equity suggests the company uses more leverage than its peer. The current ratio is approximately 0.8x, indicating that short-term liabilities exceed short-term assets. Free cash flow for FY 2025 reached about $16.1 billion. This represents the total cash left over after accounting for operational spending and capital expenditures.

Risk profile comparison

Abbott Laboratories faces significant oversight from global health authorities and the Food & Drug Administration (FDA). Recent legal settlements involving infant formula and ongoing litigation regarding heart valves demonstrate the high stakes of its manufacturing processes. The company must also manage the debt load from its $20 billion acquisition of Exact Sciences, which could limit financial flexibility. Competition from other diversified giants like Johnson & Johnson (JNJ -1.42%) also pressures its market share in several device categories.

UnitedHealth Group is highly exposed to changes in government policy, particularly shifts in Medicare Advantage funding. The company also faces persistent cybersecurity threats, having dealt with significant disruptions and lawsuits following a major attack on its Change Healthcare business. Predicting medical costs accurately is vital for its insurance segment, as unexpected inflation can quickly erode its narrow net margin. Competitors such as Elevance Health (ELV -1.20%) continue to vie for the same large-scale government and employer contracts.

Valuation comparison

Abbott Laboratories appears to offer a lower sales multiple, while UnitedHealth Group trades at a slight premium based on future earnings estimates.

Valuation metrics include those sourced from Financial Modeling Prep (FMP) and may differ from those of other data providers.

Which stock would I buy in 2026?

Abbott Labs’s last reported quarterly results, for the period ended Sept. 30, and its guidance for fiscal 2026 presented investors with a mixed bag. The company beat on revenue expectations, with more than $13 billion in the quarter, but missed on estimates for net income and therefore earnings-per share.

Abbott’s strengths are that adding Exact Sciences adds a cancer screening arm and folds in the popular Cologuard product to its portfolio. Abbott should be able to power sales outside the U.S. for Cologuard. For 2026, Abbott should get companywide sales over $50 billion, which would be about 13% year-over-year growth.

There is an interesting wrinkle for investors. Abbott is spinning off its nutrition business into a new publicly traded company through a planned tax-free distribution to Abbott shareholders. Upon completion of the separation, Abbott shareholders will own shares of both Abbott and the new nutrition company, allowing shareholders to participate in the value creation opportunities of both businesses. Long-term, this should benefit Abbott stock, as investors like more focused businesses that are faster-growing (spin-off stocks like this tend to suffer after the transaction, because shareholders prefer to sell those stocks and retain the original stock).

UnitedHealth, meanwhile, is the healthcare giant it seems most Americans can’t avoid, even though they want to. There is reputational risk to the business given its poor perception among its customers. One risk that comes is that, as a company so dependent on federal spending, UnitedHealth could end up in the crosshairs of a Congress seeking to lower costs for consumers.

Setting that risk aside, UnitedHealth Group is barely growing its top-line revenue this year (Wall Street expects a little over $1 billion to be added to get the business to close to $500 billion). Yet it will squeeze a nearly 50% increase in net income from those sales, to more than $17.4 billion, according to consensus estimates. That’s a big plus for its shareholders.

Which is the better buy then? Go with Abbott Laboratories, which has a long history of innovation and occupies a niche of the healthcare system less likely to be part of an overhaul that may (or may not) come from a government seeking to wrangle crushing medical costs and inferior care for Americans.

A whopping 72% of Gen Z investors said they had already made changes to their retirement savings or investment portfolios in anticipation of the November elections, according to a survey from the Nationwide Retirement Institute. That’s far more than the 17% of Baby Boomers who reported doing the same.

But the gap isn’t a stampede for the exits. About as many Gen Z investors added money to take advantage of current conditions as moved into safer investments, according to the survey. The first generation to grow up with free trades on their phones is treating the election as a market event. 

Boomers’ decision to wait it out may be less about hard-won wisdom than about where they are in life. Most boomers are drawing down their savings or close to it, so a portfolio “change” for them usually means selling. They’re also more likely to already have an adviser — 43% do, according to Northwestern Mutual — and for shares held in taxable accounts, holding until death lets heirs skip the capital-gains bill entirely.

Across all generations, 40% of investors have made changes ahead of the election on Nov. 3, which will determine which party controls either chamber of Congress. 

Mark Hackett, the chief market strategist for Nationwide’s Investment Management Group, told Fortune that younger investors aren’t necessarily more fearful than older generations. Instead, they are changing the way they interact with financial markets as well as how they react to the massive amounts of financial information and trading tools at their fingertips.

“Younger investors came of age in an environment where investing is highly mobile, social and increasingly real-time, so adjusting a portfolio can feel less like a major decision and more like an ongoing process with almost no friction between a headline, an investing app and a potential portfolio adjustment,” Hackett said.

That accessibility can be both good and bad. While younger investors have unprecedented access to financial information, it also means they have more opportunities to make impulsive decisions based on breaking news instead of a company’s financials or an analysis of economic conditions.

“The question, therefore, is less about risk tolerance or volatility, and more about whether greater access to information is improving decision-making or simply increasing the temptation to trade,” Hackett said. “The latter can be fatal for portfolio longevity.”

“For younger investors, frequent portfolio changes can interrupt the power of compounding over decades,” he said.

Staying invested

The survey, conducted between late August and early September, included 2,029 American investors with at least $10,000 in investable assets and 538 financial advisers and financial professionals.

Despite the potential for turbulence caused by the midterms, the financial advisers surveyed recommend staying the course. More than half said maintaining an existing investment strategy is generally the best approach during an election year. 

The market’s previous performance helps explain their advice.

Since 1950 the S&P 500 has consistently risen in the 12 months following midterm elections and has returned gains of 15% on average, according to J.P. Morgan Asset Management. While the past doesn’t predict future performance, selling in times of uncertainty can be a gamble.

Hackett said he recommends investors maintain a diversified portfolio and rebalance their investments only periodically depending on their desired risk exposure.

That doesn’t mean investors should never make changes. Hackett said adjusting investments to reflect personal financial goals, changes in risk tolerance, or shifting income needs are good reasons to make changes. Still, they should exercise caution, he added.

“Investors should be careful not to mistake a source of uncertainty for a source of lasting impairment to long-term returns,” he said.