See Bull Run's current company pages for Apollo Hospitals Enterprise and Global Health / Medanta. Medanta can also be compared with Bull Run's Max Healthcare vs Medanta.

Start with the accounting structure, not the consolidated margin

Apollo's ₹7,044 crore consolidated revenue is not ₹7,044 crore of hospital revenue

This is the most important accounting distinction in the comparison.

Apollo's Q1 consolidated revenue mix was approximately:

• 50.6% Healthcare Services;
• 42.3% Apollo HealthCo;
• 7.1% Apollo Health & Lifestyle.

Medanta does not have an equivalent ₹3,000 crore low-margin pharmacy-distribution segment.

This is why Apollo's consolidated margin looks deceptively low

Apollo consolidated EBITDA reached approximately ₹1,092 crore.

Consolidated margin was around 15.5%.

Medanta reported 23.8% EBITDA margin.

A simplistic comparison would conclude Medanta is dramatically more profitable.

That would be wrong.

Apollo hospitals themselves generated roughly 24.2% EBITDA margin

That is only about 40 basis points above Medanta's reported 23.8% margin.

The hospital-level profitability gap is therefore small.

Apollo HealthCo operates at a completely different margin structure

HealthCo generated approximately:

• ₹2,977 crore revenue;
• ₹171 crore EBITDA;
• roughly 5.7% EBITDA margin;
• ₹101 crore PAT.

Its revenue is enormous.

Its operating margin is structurally far below hospital margins.

Low pharmacy margin does not automatically mean low strategic value

Pharmacy distribution creates:

• frequent consumer touchpoints;
• chronic-medication repeat purchases;
• digital engagement;
• prescription fulfilment;
• potential hospital referrals;
• diagnostics cross-selling.

The economic model is more similar to healthcare retail and distribution than a hospital.

Apollo operates more than 7,400 pharmacy outlets

Q1 reporting showed approximately 7,440 operating pharmacy outlets.

This network creates national reach that Medanta's hospital-focused model does not attempt to replicate.

The pharmacy business is therefore not merely an accounting margin drag.

It is part of Apollo's patient-acquisition ecosystem.

Digital Health has also become less dilutive

Apollo 24/7's cash loss has fallen sharply from historical levels.

As digital losses narrow, HealthCo can contribute more consolidated profit without needing the pharmacy-distribution business to become a hospital-like margin business.

Medanta is much closer to a pure hospital operator

Global Health's economics are dominated by:

• inpatient care;
• outpatient care;
• hospital pharmacy;
• international patients;
• advanced diagnostics inside the hospital ecosystem;
• tertiary and quaternary specialties.

That makes its consolidated EBITDA margin much easier to interpret as hospital economics.

Medanta does have pharmacy revenue—but at a far smaller scale

OPD pharmacy revenue increased approximately 50.9% to ₹60.9 crore.

That is a strong growth rate.

But the number remains tiny compared with Apollo HealthCo's ₹2,977 crore.

The definitions are also completely different because HealthCo includes far more than hospital OPD pharmacy.

Apollo's hospital scale is roughly 2.7–2.8 times Medanta across multiple KPIs

The consistency is striking.

Apollo had approximately:

• 2.75x Medanta's census operating beds;
• 2.7x Medanta's hospital revenue;
• about 2.7x Medanta's quarterly EBITDA;
• roughly 2.85x Medanta's inpatient volume.

The physical and financial scale ratios line up unusually well.

Apollo reported 8,352 operating beds

This excludes certain managed and AHLL beds under the company's stated KPI definition.

Overall group hospital occupancy was around 70%.

Established hospitals operated around 72% occupancy.

Operating beds increased approximately 4% year on year.

Medanta reported 3,037 census beds

Installed capacity was higher at approximately 3,737 beds.

The difference matters.

Not every installed bed is necessarily included in the active census operating denominator at the same time.

Medanta added 72 beds during Q1:

• 51 at Noida;
• 21 at Lucknow.

Apollo's inpatient volume reached approximately 171,662

It increased about 13%.

Medanta inpatient volume reached approximately 60,214.

It increased approximately 27.7%.

Apollo therefore treats far more inpatients.

Medanta is currently growing patient volume far faster.

Medanta outpatient growth was even stronger

Outpatient volumes increased approximately 34.5% to more than 1.1 million visits.

This creates a future inpatient funnel.

Many complex hospital cases begin with outpatient diagnosis and physician consultation.

Apollo's Healthcare Services growth was 22%

Revenue increased from approximately ₹2,935 crore to ₹3,567 crore.

EBITDA increased approximately 20% to ₹862 crore.

PAT for Healthcare Services increased around 25% to ₹480 crore.

This is strong growth for a hospital base of Apollo's size.

Medanta grew faster from the smaller base

EBITDA increased approximately 23.5% to ₹315.3 crore.

Inpatient volumes increased nearly 28%.

Outpatient volumes increased more than 34%.

Occupied bed days increased approximately 21.1%.

Medanta's PAT looks flat because the prior year contained exceptional income

Q1 FY27 PAT was approximately ₹157.3 crore.

The prior-year quarter included approximately ₹19.6 crore of non-recurring exceptional income linked to an EPCG liability reversal.

Reported PAT growth therefore understates underlying operating improvement.

The Noida hospital is Medanta's biggest near-term earnings lever

In the preceding quarter, the EBITDA loss had been approximately ₹23.6 crore.

That is a very rapid improvement.

Management indicated the ramp was progressing ahead of earlier financial expectations.

Noida can shift from earnings drag to earnings contributor

A newly opened hospital initially carries:

• doctor costs;
• nursing costs;
• utilities;
• depreciation;
• marketing;
• equipment costs;
• administration.

before occupancy reaches maturity.

If Noida crosses EBITDA breakeven, consolidated Medanta margin can rise even without dramatic same-hospital pricing growth.

Apollo is carrying its own new-hospital losses

Apollo's recently commissioned hospital cohort generated approximately ₹92 crore of Q1 revenue.

The cohort produced roughly ₹38 crore of EBITDA losses.

The facilities include multiple hospitals at different ramp stages.

They are therefore not directly comparable with Medanta Noida.

But the comparison shows why mature margins matter

New hospitals depress reported group economics.

Established hospitals show what those assets can potentially become after occupancy matures.

This makes mature-versus-new segmentation essential for hospital investing.

Apollo established hospital margin was approximately 25.9%

Medanta's EBITDA margin excluding Noida was approximately 25.8%.

The difference is only around 10 basis points.

This is perhaps the most important operating insight in the entire comparison.

Mature hospital economics are almost identical

The investment question is therefore not whether one company understands premium hospital operations.

Both clearly do.

The question is:

• who can reproduce those margins across the next thousands of beds;
• how much capital it will require;
• how quickly new hospitals ramp;
• what valuation investors already pay for that growth.

Apollo occupancy is higher

Apollo overall occupancy was approximately 70%.

Medanta occupancy was approximately 62.6%.

The difference is around 740 basis points.

Apollo's established hospitals were around 72%.

Medanta occupancy is being diluted by expansion

Noida is still early in its ramp.

Installed capacity is also greater than current census capacity.

As newer beds begin treating more patients, occupancy can rise without major additional construction.

Medanta ARPOB reached ₹70,244

That was up approximately 5.5% year on year.

Average length of stay improved from approximately 3.03 days to 2.87 days.

ARPP remained around ₹2.02 lakh.

This combination suggests better throughput rather than simple price inflation

ARPOB increased.

Average length of stay fell.

Patient revenue remained broadly stable.

That means a physical bed can serve more patients over a year.

Shorter appropriate stays can materially improve asset turnover.

Apollo reports ARPP instead of ARPOB

Apollo reported Q1 ARPP of approximately ₹186,630.

That increased around 8.3%.

Average length of stay was approximately 3.09 days.

Because Apollo and Medanta use different headline realization KPIs, direct ARPOB comparison would be artificial.

Apollo's ARPP is slightly below Medanta's

Medanta ARPP was approximately ₹2.02 lakh.

Apollo was approximately ₹1.87 lakh.

But the scope, patient mix and hospital network are different.

Higher ARPP does not automatically imply better margins.

Apollo's advantage is its integrated patient funnel

A patient can interact with Apollo through:

• a pharmacy;
• Apollo 24/7;
• a diagnostic centre;
• a primary-care clinic;
• a hospital;
• a specialty programme.

This can reduce customer-acquisition cost and increase lifetime healthcare revenue.

Medanta's advantage is strategic focus

Medanta does not have to manage a giant national pharmacy-distribution platform.

Capital and management attention are concentrated around:

• tertiary hospitals;
• clinical talent;
• advanced equipment;
• regional hospital clusters;
• new-city expansion.

This creates a cleaner hospital investment thesis.

Apollo's HealthCo EBITDA almost doubled

HealthCo EBITDA rose from approximately ₹94 crore to ₹171 crore.

Revenue grew 20%.

This means the low-margin ecosystem business is improving profitability faster than revenue.

If that continues, Apollo consolidated margin can expand even without a large change in hospital margin.

Apollo Health & Lifestyle is also improving

AHLL generated approximately ₹499 crore revenue.

Revenue grew 15%.

EBITDA reached approximately ₹59 crore.

PAT loss narrowed to around ₹1 crore.

The platform includes diagnostics, clinics and other retail-health formats.

Retail healthcare creates additional ecosystem optionality

Hospitals are episodic.

Most people are admitted only occasionally.

Pharmacy, diagnostics and primary care create much more frequent interaction.

Apollo can potentially turn those interactions into long-duration patient relationships.

Medanta's international patient business is growing

International patient revenue increased approximately 23% to ₹78.2 crore.

High-acuity medical travel can improve case mix because many international patients travel specifically for complex tertiary procedures.

Apollo has significantly greater international scale

Apollo's international-patient business spans multiple geographies and large referral channels.

Management highlighted strong growth from parts of Africa and Bangladesh during Q1.

Its hospital network scale gives Apollo greater ability to route patients to specialized centres.

Apollo is adding more than 5,800 beds over five years

This is a huge investment programme even for Apollo.

Projects include:

• new metropolitan hospitals;
• brownfield capacity;
• Delhi NCR projects;
• Indore;
• Guwahati;
• Ranchi;
• other strategic city expansions.

Apollo's scale lowers some expansion risk

The group can use:

• existing physician networks;
• procurement scale;
• brand recognition;
• national payer relationships;
• pharmacy and digital referral channels.

These advantages can reduce the cost of building demand at new hospitals.

But 5,800 new beds can still dilute ROCE

Apollo already earns high returns.

Maintaining those returns while adding thousands of beds is difficult.

Every new project must eventually reach:

• acceptable occupancy;
• positive EBITDA;
• mature margins;
• adequate return on capital.

Medanta's expansion is even larger relative to its existing network

Medanta has disclosed a multi-year pipeline capable of adding several thousand beds.

The announced programme requires approximately ₹4,850 crore of future capex.

Relative to only 3,037 current census beds, this can transform the company.

Medanta is building major regional super-specialty centres

Projects include:

• South Delhi;
• Mumbai;
• Guwahati;
• Varanasi;
• existing-hospital brownfield expansions;
• specialty capacity such as oncology.

Guwahati has increased to approximately 650 beds

The proposed project cost is around ₹970 crore.

The larger plan reflects additional permitted floor area and clinical capacity.

A 650-bed tertiary hospital can become a regional referral hub if execution is strong.

Medanta also expects an approximately 80-bed Indore cancer facility

The specialised oncology facility can expand cancer capacity while freeing existing hospital space for other high-acuity specialties.

Specialty-led brownfield expansion can often generate attractive returns because the existing brand and referral network are already established.

Noida is the test case for Medanta's next decade

If Noida reaches mature economics quickly, investors gain confidence in the company's ability to replicate the Gurugram model.

If it takes many years, the ₹4,850 crore pipeline becomes much riskier.

The Q1 narrowing of EBITDA loss to ₹4.9 crore is therefore strategically more important than its current absolute profit contribution.

Apollo has already demonstrated multi-city replication at a much larger scale

Apollo operates across numerous Tier 1, Tier 2 and Tier 3 cities.

It has repeatedly established tertiary and quaternary-care programmes outside its original markets.

That creates a stronger historical execution record.

Medanta remains more concentrated

Gurugram remains the core flagship.

Lucknow and Patna are increasingly important.

Noida is ramping quickly.

The new pipeline should reduce concentration if executed successfully.

Current Bull Run capital efficiency favours Apollo

Apollo generates higher ROCE and ROE.

Medanta carries materially lower standardized leverage.

Apollo also has a much larger cumulative free-cash-flow history.

The capital-return gap is meaningful but not enormous

Apollo ROCE is approximately 19.3%.

Medanta is around 16.9%.

The difference is about 240 basis points.

Medanta's return profile is impressive considering Noida is still ramping.

Medanta's lower leverage is valuable ahead of a large capex cycle

Bull Run debt-to-equity is approximately 0.30x.

Apollo is around 0.60x.

Medanta therefore begins its major expansion programme from a comparatively conservative leverage position.

Apollo has greater absolute cash-generation capacity

Bull Run's standardized five-year cumulative free cash flow is approximately ₹3,388 crore.

Medanta's is approximately ₹631 crore.

Apollo's greater scale naturally explains part of the difference.

It nevertheless provides more internally generated funding capacity.

Market capitalisation is more than 3.5 times higher for Apollo

Apollo's market capitalisation is approximately 3.57 times Medanta's.

Yet Apollo trades at a slightly lower trailing P/E.

This means the market-cap premium comes from a much larger earnings base, not simply a higher earnings multiple.

Apollo's physical hospital scale is about 2.75 times larger

That is less than the 3.57x market-cap difference.

But Apollo owns major additional businesses:

• HealthCo;
• Apollo 24/7;
• pharmacy distribution;
• AHLL;
• diagnostics and retail health.

Those assets explain part of the extra enterprise value beyond hospital beds alone.

Medanta is cheaper on book value

Medanta trades around 9.1 times book.

Apollo trades around 13.6 times.

Apollo's higher ROE partly justifies the premium.

Medanta's lower P/B becomes more attractive if its new hospitals raise ROE without requiring excessive equity issuance.

Apollo is surprisingly cheaper on P/E

Apollo trades around 61.5x trailing earnings.

Medanta trades around 64.7x.

Both are expensive in absolute terms.

But investors are not currently paying a higher earnings multiple for Apollo despite its:

• larger hospital network;
• integrated healthcare ecosystem;
• higher ROCE;
• higher ROE;
• larger free-cash-flow base.

Why does Medanta still deserve a premium-quality valuation?

Because percentage growth is much faster.

Medanta offers:

• 26% quarterly income growth;
• 28% inpatient growth;
• 34% outpatient growth;
• a Noida hospital approaching breakeven;
• large greenfield capacity;
• mature hospital margins near 26%.

It has much more operating leverage from a smaller base.

Apollo's growth is more diversified

Apollo can grow through:

• hospital admissions;
• new beds;
• ARPP;
• pharmacy distribution;
• digital health;
• diagnostics;
• international patients;
• retail health.

This reduces dependence on any one hospital ramp.

Medanta's growth is purer but more concentrated

Its next several years depend heavily on making new hospital capital productive.

If that works, earnings can grow dramatically.

If projects are delayed or occupancy disappoints, there are fewer unrelated businesses to offset the drag.

Recent share-price momentum strongly favours Apollo over one year

Bull Run's September snapshot shows:

• Apollo one-year return: approximately +13.5%;
• Medanta one-year return: approximately +3.9%.

Medanta has nevertheless performed much more strongly over the latest three and six months.

Its three-month return is approximately 17.3% and six-month return around 30.2%.

What must Apollo Hospitals prove?

• Healthcare Services growth should remain in the high teens or better.
• New hospital losses need to reduce quickly.
• More than 5,800 planned beds must preserve ROCE.
• HealthCo EBITDA needs to keep growing faster than revenue.
• Digital-health losses should continue falling.
• Established hospital margins should remain near 26%.
• Pharmacy scale must translate into meaningful ecosystem value.
• The integrated model must continue outperforming a pure hospital portfolio.

What must Medanta prove?

• Noida should achieve EBITDA breakeven and mature rapidly.
• New greenfield hospitals must replicate existing premium economics.
• Occupancy should rise from 62.6% as capacity matures.
• ARPOB growth should remain supported by throughput and case mix.
• The ₹4,850 crore capex programme must preserve ROCE.
• Gurugram concentration should decline without diluting group margins.
• International patient revenue should continue expanding.
• Leverage should remain controlled through construction.

What could make Medanta outperform Apollo?

Medanta has much greater percentage operating leverage.

If Noida turns profitable and the next greenfield hospitals follow the same ramp curve, revenue can grow at 20%-plus rates while margins remain near the mid-20s.

Its smaller market capitalisation magnifies the impact of each successful hospital.

What could make Apollo outperform Medanta?

Apollo can compound several healthcare businesses simultaneously.

If hospital expansion succeeds while HealthCo and digital healthcare improve margins, consolidated earnings can grow faster than the hospital segment alone.

Its lower current P/E also means it does not require a valuation rerating to outperform.

Which company has more hospital beds?

Apollo Hospitals by a wide margin.

Approximately 8,352 operating beds versus Medanta at 3,037 census beds.

Which company is growing faster?

Medanta currently.

Q1 total income grew approximately 26.2% versus Apollo consolidated revenue at 20.6% and Apollo Healthcare Services at 22%.

Which has higher occupancy?

Apollo Hospitals.

Overall hospital occupancy was approximately 70% versus Medanta at 62.6%.

Which has higher hospital margins?

They are very close.

Apollo Healthcare Services generated approximately 24.2% EBITDA margin.

Medanta reported 23.8% including Noida and 25.8% excluding Noida.

Which has stronger mature-hospital economics?

Essentially a tie.

Apollo established hospitals were around 25.9% EBITDA margin versus Medanta ex-Noida around 25.8%.

Which has the stronger pharmacy business?

Apollo by an enormous margin.

HealthCo generated ₹2,977 crore quarterly revenue and includes a national pharmacy-distribution and digital-health platform.

Medanta's disclosed OPD pharmacy revenue was approximately ₹60.9 crore and is not the same reporting scope.

Which has higher ROCE?

Apollo Hospitals.

Bull Run standardized ROCE is approximately 19.3% versus Medanta around 16.9%.

Which has lower leverage?

Medanta.

Standardized debt-to-equity is approximately 0.30x versus Apollo around 0.60x.

Which stock is cheaper?

Apollo on trailing earnings; Medanta on book value.

Apollo trades at approximately 61.5x P/E versus Medanta around 64.7x.

Medanta trades at approximately 9.1x book versus Apollo around 13.6x.

Which is better: Apollo Hospitals or Medanta?

Apollo Hospitals currently has the stronger overall scale-and-quality profile. Hospital revenue is almost three times Medanta's, operating beds are around 2.75 times larger, mature hospital margins are excellent, standardized ROCE is higher and the stock trades at a slightly lower trailing P/E.

Medanta currently has the stronger percentage-growth and operating-leverage profile. Revenue and patient volumes are growing faster, Noida is approaching EBITDA breakeven, mature-network margins are already around 26% and a huge expansion programme can transform the company's scale.

The pharmacy mix is the biggest structural difference.

Apollo's consolidated margin looks lower because almost ₹3,000 crore of quarterly revenue comes from lower-margin HealthCo.

Its hospital economics themselves are very similar to Medanta's.

At September 2026 valuations, Apollo offers the stronger current combination of scale, ROCE, ecosystem breadth and P/E. Medanta offers more operating leverage from new hospitals and a cleaner pure-hospital growth thesis. Medanta can outperform if Noida's rapid ramp becomes repeatable across its next greenfield projects; Apollo remains stronger if its integrated pharmacy, digital and hospital ecosystem converts scale into faster consolidated profit growth.

Frequently asked questions