See Bull Run's current pages for KIMS Hospitals and Global Health / Medanta. For adjacent hospital comparisons, see Narayana Hrudayalaya vs KIMS Hospitals and Max Healthcare vs Medanta.

Q1 FY27 scorecard: almost equal revenue, very different earnings

KIMS has 86% more reported beds—but less revenue

KIMS therefore has approximately 86% more beds under the companies' respective disclosed operating definitions.

Yet Medanta generated more quarterly revenue.

This looks paradoxical until occupancy and ARPOB are considered.

Hospital assets create earnings only when three things happen together

• The beds are physically commissioned.
• Patients actually occupy those beds.
• The case mix generates adequate revenue and margin.

KIMS has moved rapidly on the first item.

Medanta currently performs much better on the second and third.

KIMS added almost 1,000 beds during Q1

The company expanded capacity by approximately 995 beds through projects including Kondapur and Palakkad.

That is an extraordinary amount of capacity to absorb in one quarter.

The new Kondapur facility became operational only toward the end of June.

Its beds therefore entered the quarter-end denominator before they had a full quarter of patient activity.

That is why KIMS's 49% occupancy requires context

Reported occupancy fell even while:

• inpatient volumes rose 26.6%;
• outpatient volumes rose 28.5%;
• revenue increased 36.1%;
• ARPOB increased 9.7%.

Those numbers are not consistent with collapsing hospital demand.

They are consistent with capacity growing faster than the beds can initially be filled.

KIMS inpatient volume reached 72,493

That exceeded Medanta's approximately 60,214 inpatient cases.

This is an important reminder that KIMS is not a small clinical platform.

It is already treating more quarterly inpatients than Medanta under the companies' disclosed volume figures.

Medanta nevertheless monetizes each occupied bed much better

That represents almost 49% higher revenue realization.

ARPOB is influenced by:

• specialty mix;
• patient acuity;
• geography;
• payer mix;
• international patients;
• pricing;
• average length of stay;
• bed turnover.

It is therefore not simply a price comparison.

Medanta is heavily concentrated in high-acuity tertiary care

The Medanta model is built around large super-specialty centres in markets such as:

• Gurugram;
• Lucknow;
• Patna;
• Noida;
• Indore;
• Ranchi.

Its core franchises include cardiac sciences, neurosciences, oncology, transplantation and complex critical care.

That supports higher revenue per occupied bed.

KIMS also has tertiary-care capability, but its regional mix is broader

KIMS built its original strength in Telangana and Andhra Pradesh before expanding into:

• Karnataka;
• Maharashtra;
• Kerala;
• additional Hyderabad clusters.

The economics of a mature Hyderabad hospital and a newly commissioned hospital in a new market can be dramatically different.

Regional expansion is KIMS's biggest opportunity and biggest risk

KIMS is trying to replicate a proven regional model across new geographies.

That can create value if each new hospital develops:

• local physician leadership;
• payer empanelment;
• strong referral channels;
• premium specialties;
• adequate occupancy.

The difficulty is that none of these happen immediately after construction completes.

Medanta is entering a similarly aggressive expansion phase

Medanta has announced a multi-year programme that can add roughly 3,000-plus beds across projects including:

• South Delhi;
• Mumbai;
• Guwahati;
• Varanasi;
• existing-hospital expansions.

Its planned future capex is approximately ₹4,850 crore.

The difference is timing

KIMS has already commissioned a large amount of new capacity.

It is currently paying the earnings dilution.

Medanta has more of its major expansion still ahead.

Its current ROCE therefore reflects a more mature operating base than the company may have during the peak construction years.

Medanta Noida demonstrates how quickly a successful greenfield can change earnings

Noida generated approximately ₹85.5 crore of Q1 income.

Its EBITDA loss narrowed to only ₹4.9 crore.

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

That is a dramatic improvement in one quarter.

Noida is now close to moving from drag to contributor

Once a hospital crosses EBITDA breakeven:

• incremental revenue carries better operating leverage;
• fixed costs are already largely established;
• group margin can improve;
• ROCE begins to normalize.

This is the exact curve KIMS needs Kondapur and other newer facilities to follow.

KIMS's Mahadevapura ramp is encouraging

Management said the Bengaluru Mahadevapura unit reached EBITDA-positive status within roughly seven months.

It was already producing meaningful monthly revenue by July.

This is an important proof point.

It suggests not every new KIMS facility requires years to reach operating breakeven.

Kondapur is the larger swing factor

Kondapur has the potential to become one of the group's major Hyderabad assets.

Management has discussed a very substantial future revenue opportunity from the facility once occupancy and payer empanelments mature.

The Q1 denominator therefore contains a hospital whose eventual economics are not yet visible in Q1 PAT.

ARPP is much closer than ARPOB

KIMS reported average revenue per patient of approximately ₹1.64 lakh.

Medanta reported approximately ₹2.02 lakh.

The gap remains meaningful, but smaller than the ARPOB gap.

This reflects the interaction between revenue per patient and length of stay.

Medanta has the shorter average length of stay

Medanta ALOS was approximately 2.87 days.

KIMS reported approximately 3.47 days.

A shorter clinically appropriate stay means the same bed can treat more patients over a year.

This increases asset turnover.

Medanta combines higher ARPOB with faster bed turnover

This helps explain why Medanta produces more EBITDA despite operating fewer census beds.

A simple revenue-per-bed calculation illustrates the current maturity gap

Using reported Q1 operating revenue and disclosed active-bed denominators:

• KIMS generates roughly ₹21 lakh quarterly revenue per operational bed;
• Medanta generates roughly ₹43 lakh quarterly operating revenue per census bed.

The Medanta figure is about twice as high.

This is an analytical estimate—not a company-reported KPI

EBITDA-per-bed shows an even larger difference

Annualizing Q1 EBITDA against the disclosed current bed denominator produces approximately:

• KIMS: ₹17 lakh EBITDA per operational bed;
• Medanta: roughly ₹41.5 lakh EBITDA per census bed.

Again, this is an analytical estimate rather than company guidance.

It demonstrates just how much unused earnings capacity sits inside KIMS's newly expanded network.

KIMS's EBITDA margin fell because capacity arrived before maturity

Q1 EBITDA margin was approximately 20.1%.

A year earlier it was around 22.7%.

Revenue increased 36%.

EBITDA increased only 20%.

New hospitals added operating costs before contributing mature margins.

Medanta reported 23.8% margin despite Noida

Reported EBITDA was ₹315.3 crore.

Excluding Noida, EBITDA was approximately ₹320.1 crore at a 25.8% margin.

This means Medanta's mature hospital portfolio already operates around the mid-20s.

The mature-margin difference is larger than the reported comparison suggests

KIMS's mature Telangana assets also operate at substantially better economics than the consolidated group.

So both companies have the same strategic objective:

turn new capacity into mature-cluster profitability.

KIMS PAT has been hit much harder than EBITDA

PAT fell to approximately ₹37 crore from ₹85 crore.

That happened despite strong revenue and positive EBITDA growth.

The biggest reasons include:

• higher depreciation;
• higher interest expense;
• new-hospital operating losses;
• pre-opening and ramp costs.

KIMS has already taken a major step to repair finance cost

The company raised approximately ₹1,500 crore through a QIP.

A large portion was used to repay acquisition and expansion debt.

Debt reduced materially by the end of June and again after the quarter.

Management expects interest savings to become more visible from Q2.

This creates a powerful PAT-recovery mechanism

KIMS does not need 36% revenue growth forever for PAT to recover.

It needs:

• new hospitals to approach breakeven;
• consolidated margins to normalize;
• finance costs to decline;
• depreciation growth to be absorbed by higher revenue.

If these occur together, PAT can grow materially faster than revenue.

Medanta PAT was ₹157 crore

Reported PAT was almost unchanged year on year.

But the prior-year comparison included a ₹19.6 crore exceptional benefit.

Underlying operating profit was much stronger than the flat headline suggests.

The stock market values both companies almost equally

This is the central valuation puzzle

KIMS has:

• slightly lower market value;
• more reported operational beds;
• faster current revenue growth.

Medanta has:

• higher revenue;
• higher EBITDA;
• more than four times Q1 PAT;
• higher ARPOB;
• higher occupancy;
• higher ROCE;
• lower P/E;
• lower price-to-book.

Why does KIMS still command 166x trailing earnings?

Because the market is not valuing ₹37 crore quarterly PAT as normalized earnings.

Investors expect:

• debt reduction;
• lower interest expense;
• Kondapur ramp-up;
• Mahadevapura maturation;
• Palakkad scaling;
• occupancy recovery;
• margin normalization.

The valuation effectively assumes a large future earnings step-up.

That assumption creates execution risk

If new hospitals ramp quickly, today's P/E can fall sharply through earnings growth even without a share-price decline.

If ramp-up takes longer, 166x becomes extremely difficult to justify.

Medanta's valuation hurdle is lower—but still demanding

A 64.7x P/E is also expensive in absolute terms.

The company is priced for:

• continued 20%-plus growth;
• Noida profitability;
• successful greenfield execution;
• sustained mid-20s mature margins;
• disciplined capex.

ROCE is the best summary of where the two companies sit today

KIMS's negative free cash flow reflects construction—not necessarily business failure

The company has invested heavily in:

• hospital acquisitions;
• new buildings;
• medical equipment;
• regional expansion.

Negative free cash flow can create shareholder value if future returns are high.

It destroys value if new hospitals remain underutilized.

Medanta is about to enter the same capital-allocation test

Its current free-cash-flow history looks stronger partly because much of the next expansion programme is still ahead.

As ₹4,850 crore of planned capex is deployed, free cash flow and ROCE can come under pressure before the new hospitals mature.

Which has the stronger regional expansion model?

There is no clear winner yet.

KIMS has already demonstrated successful regional expansion but is carrying the near-term financial burden.

Medanta has a strong early proof point in Noida but a large portion of the future programme remains unbuilt.

Which has higher ARPOB?

Medanta.

Approximately ₹70,244 versus KIMS at ₹47,200.

Which has higher occupancy?

Medanta.

Approximately 62.6% versus KIMS around 49%.

Which is growing faster?

KIMS by reported Q1 revenue growth.

Approximately 36.1% versus Medanta total-income growth of 26.2%.

Which has better current margins?

Medanta.

Reported EBITDA margin was 23.8% versus KIMS at 20.1%.

Medanta ex-Noida margin was approximately 25.8%.

Which has higher current ROCE?

Medanta.

Bull Run standardized ROCE is approximately 16.9% versus KIMS at 9.3%.

Which stock is cheaper?

Medanta by a wide margin on current reported earnings and book value.

Its P/E is approximately 64.7x versus KIMS around 166x.

Which is better: KIMS Hospitals or Medanta?

Medanta currently has the stronger valuation-adjusted operating profile. It generates more revenue and EBITDA from a smaller active-bed base, produces more than four times KIMS's Q1 PAT, operates at higher occupancy and ARPOB, earns materially higher ROCE and trades at a much lower earnings multiple.

KIMS has the stronger immediate operating-leverage setup. It has already commissioned the capacity that is currently depressing occupancy, margins and PAT. If those beds mature rapidly while QIP-funded debt reduction lowers finance expense, the earnings denominator can improve dramatically.

The two stocks therefore represent different points on the hospital-capex curve.

Medanta is currently harvesting more mature asset economics.

KIMS is currently funding and ramping the next stage of its network.

At September 2026 valuations, Medanta offers the stronger current combination of ARPOB, occupancy, margin, ROCE and P/E. KIMS can close the gap only if new facilities convert capacity into profitable occupied beds quickly enough to justify today's exceptionally high earnings multiple.

Frequently asked questions