ACT vs RDN

For growth investors, Radian Group Inc.

(RDN) is the stronger pick with 4. 0% revenue growth year-over-year, versus 2. 4% for Enact Holdings, Inc. (ACT). Radian Group Inc. (RDN) offers the better valuation at 9. 1x trailing P/E (7. 2x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Radian Group Inc. (RDN) a "Buy" — based on 22 analyst ratings — the highest consensus in this comparison. The "better buy" depends entirely on your goals: growth investors should weight revenue trajectory, value investors should weight P/E and PEG, and income investors should weight dividend yield and streak.

On trailing P/E, Radian Group Inc.

(RDN) is the cheapest at 9. 1x versus Enact Holdings, Inc. at 9. 4x. On forward P/E, Radian Group Inc. is actually cheaper at 7. 2x. The PEG ratio (P/E divided by earnings growth rate) is the most growth-adjusted single valuation metric: Radian Group Inc. wins at 1. 74x versus Enact Holdings, Inc. 's 1. 81x — a reasonable growth-adjusted valuation.

Over the past 5 years, Enact Holdings, Inc.

(ACT) delivered a total return of +135. 0%, compared to +69. 8% for Radian Group Inc. (RDN). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: RDN returned +230. 5% versus ACT's +135. 0%. Past returns do not guarantee future results, and the stock with the higher historical return may already have its best growth priced in.

By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Enact Holdings, Inc.

(ACT) is the lower-risk stock at 0. 28β versus Radian Group Inc. 's 0. 37β — meaning RDN is approximately 34% more volatile than ACT relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Enact Holdings, Inc. (ACT) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 14% versus 51% for Radian Group Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.

By revenue growth (latest reported year), Radian Group Inc.

(RDN) is pulling ahead at 4. 0% versus 2. 4% for Enact Holdings, Inc. (ACT). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Radian Group Inc. grew EPS 4. 0% year-over-year, compared to 3. 4% for Enact Holdings, Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, ACT leads at 4. 0% annualised revenue growth. Higher growth typically commands a higher valuation multiple — check whether the premium P/E or P/S is justified by the growth rate using the PEG ratio.

Enact Holdings, Inc.

(ACT) is the more profitable company, earning 54. 8% net margin versus 46. 8% for Radian Group Inc. — meaning it keeps 54. 8% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: ACT leads at 69. 8% versus 59. 8% for RDN. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — RDN leads at 95. 1%, reflecting greater pricing power or product mix advantage. Stronger margins indicate durable pricing power, lower cost of revenue, or higher mix of software/services. They are one of the clearest signs of business quality.

The PEG ratio (forward P/E divided by expected earnings growth rate) is the most precise measure of undervaluation relative to growth potential.

By this metric, Radian Group Inc. (RDN) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 1. 74x versus Enact Holdings, Inc. 's 1. 81x. Both stocks trade at elevated growth-adjusted valuations, so expected growth needs to materialise. On forward earnings alone, Radian Group Inc. (RDN) trades at 7. 2x forward P/E versus 8. 8x for Enact Holdings, Inc. — 1. 5x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for RDN: 12. 4% to $40. 00.

All stocks in this comparison pay dividends.

Radian Group Inc. (RDN) offers the highest yield at 2. 8%, versus 1. 9% for Enact Holdings, Inc. (ACT).

For long-horizon retirement investors, Enact Holdings, Inc.

(ACT) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0. 28), 1. 9% yield, +135. 0% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (ACT: +135. 0%, RDN: +230. 5%), confirming both are viable long-term holds — but the lower-volatility option typically results in less emotional selling during corrections. Retirement portfolios generally favour predictability over maximum returns. Consult a financial advisor before making allocation decisions.

Both stocks operate in the Financial Services sector, making this a peer-level intra-sector comparison — the same macro tailwinds and headwinds will affect both.

These fundamental differences mean investors should not choose between them on a single metric — the "better stock" depends entirely on which of these characteristics aligns with your investment strategy.