Insurance - Life
Compare Stocks
3 / 10Stock Comparison
BHF vs LNC vs PFG
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Insurance - Life
Insurance - Diversified
BHF vs LNC vs PFG — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Insurance - Life | Insurance - Life | Insurance - Diversified |
| Market Cap | $3.53B | $6.87B | $21.67B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $5.45B | $18.88B | $15.63B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $-65M | $1.73B | $1.19B |
| Gross Margin | 54.8% | 17.0% | 45.2% |
| Operating Margin | -2.9% | 12.1% | 9.1% |
| Forward P/E | 3.2x | 4.7x | 10.7x |
| Total Debt | $3.15B | $6.43B | $4.20B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $5.39B | $9.50B | $4.43B |
BHF vs LNC vs PFG — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | May 20 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Brighthouse Financi… (BHF) | 100 | 207.6 | +107.6% |
| Lincoln National Co… (LNC) | 100 | 94.8 | -5.2% |
| Principal Financial… (PFG) | 100 | 259.0 | +159.0% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: BHF vs LNC vs PFG
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
BHF has the current edge in this matchup, primarily because of its strength in growth exposure.
- Rev growth 42.2%, EPS growth 24.8%, 3Y rev CAGR -2.2%
- 42.2% revenue growth vs PFG's -3.1%
- Lower P/E (3.2x vs 10.7x)
LNC is the clearest fit if your priority is valuation efficiency.
- PEG 0.14 vs PFG's 13.78
- 4.9% yield, vs PFG's 3.0%
- 0.4% ROA vs BHF's -0.0%, ROIC 12.0% vs 9.2%
PFG is the clearest fit if your priority is income & stability and long-term compounding.
- Dividend streak 17 yrs, beta 1.00, yield 3.0%
- 195.8% 10Y total return vs LNC's 24.5%
- Lower volatility, beta 1.00, Low D/E 33.9%, current ratio 2.35x
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 42.2% revenue growth vs PFG's -3.1% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (3.2x vs 10.7x) | |
| Quality / Margins | Combined ratio 0.9 vs LNC's 0.9 (lower = better underwriting) | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.37 vs LNC's 1.34, lower leverage | |
| Dividends | 4.9% yield, vs PFG's 3.0% | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +33.0% vs BHF's +5.6% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 0.4% ROA vs BHF's -0.0%, ROIC 12.0% vs 9.2% |
BHF vs LNC vs PFG — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
BHF vs LNC vs PFG — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 3 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
LNC leads this category, winning 4 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
LNC is the larger business by revenue, generating $18.9B annually — 3.5x BHF's $5.5B. LNC is the more profitable business, keeping 9.1% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to BHF's -1.2%. On growth, LNC holds the edge at +12.5% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $5.5B | $18.9B | $15.6B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | -$6M | $2.4B | $1.4B |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | -$65M | $1.7B | $1.2B |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | -$469M | $243M | $4.4B |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +54.8% | +17.0% | +45.2% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | -2.9% | +12.1% | +9.1% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | -1.2% | +9.1% | +7.6% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | -8.6% | +1.3% | +28.4% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -39.7% | +12.5% | -3.7% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -172.2% | +100.0% | -40.8% |
Valuation Metrics
Evenly matched — BHF and LNC each lead in 3 of 6 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 6.2x trailing earnings, LNC trades at a 68% valuation discount to PFG's 19.1x P/E. Adjusting for growth (PEG ratio), LNC offers better value at 0.34x vs PFG's 13.78x — a lower PEG means you pay less per unit of expected earnings growth.
| Metric | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $3.5B | $6.9B | $21.7B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $1.3B | $3.8B | $21.4B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | 10.65x | 6.15x | 19.05x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | 3.20x | 4.67x | 10.75x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | 0.34x | 13.78x |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 2.07x | 2.43x | 12.86x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 0.57x | 0.38x | 1.39x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 0.52x | 0.61x | 1.82x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | — | — | 4.88x |
Profitability & Efficiency
Evenly matched — LNC and PFG each lead in 4 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
LNC delivers a 16.8% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $17 in annual profit, vs $-1 for BHF. PFG carries lower financial leverage with a 0.34x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to LNC's 0.59x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), BHF scores 6/9 vs LNC's 3/9, reflecting solid financial health.
| Metric | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | -1.1% | +16.8% | +9.9% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | -0.0% | +0.4% | +0.4% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | +9.2% | +12.0% | +9.0% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | +0.2% | +0.4% | +0.4% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 6 | 3 | 6 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.46x | 0.59x | 0.34x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | -$2.2B | -$3.1B | -$227M |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $5.4B | $9.5B | $4.4B |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $3.2B | $6.4B | $4.2B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | -0.04x | 15.29x | 644.64x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
PFG leads this category, winning 4 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in PFG five years ago would be worth $17,072 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $6,476 for LNC. Over the past 12 months, PFG leads with a +33.0% total return vs BHF's +5.6%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors LNC at 24.9% vs BHF's 12.4% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | -4.5% | -18.2% | +12.8% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | +5.6% | +11.0% | +33.0% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +42.1% | +95.0% | +52.3% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +26.1% | -35.2% | +70.7% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -11.9% | +24.5% | +195.8% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | +12.4% | +24.9% | +15.0% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — BHF and PFG each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
BHF is the less volatile stock with a 0.37 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than LNC's 1.34 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. PFG currently trades 97.1% from its 52-week high vs LNC's 76.8% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 0.37x | 1.34x | 1.00x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $66.33 | $46.82 | $103.00 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $42.07 | $31.61 | $75.00 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +93.0% | +76.8% | +97.1% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 63.7 | 58.2 | 69.4 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 590K | 2.1M | 1.5M |
Analyst Outlook
Evenly matched — LNC and PFG each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: BHF as "Hold", LNC as "Hold", PFG as "Hold". Consensus price targets imply 21.0% upside for LNC (target: $44) vs -5.5% for PFG (target: $95). For income investors, LNC offers the higher dividend yield at 4.86% vs BHF's 2.89%.
| Metric | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Hold | Hold | Hold |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $67.50 | $43.50 | $94.50 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 20 | 28 | 25 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | +2.9% | +4.9% | +3.0% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 6 | 0 | 17 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | $1.78 | $1.75 | $3.03 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | +2.9% | 0.0% | +4.2% |
LNC leads in 1 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow). PFG leads in 1 (Total Returns). 4 tied.
BHF vs LNC vs PFG: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is BHF or LNC or PFG a better buy right now?
For growth investors, Brighthouse Financial, Inc.
(BHF) is the stronger pick with 42. 2% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -3. 1% for Principal Financial Group, Inc. (PFG). Lincoln National Corporation (LNC) offers the better valuation at 6. 2x trailing P/E (4. 7x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Brighthouse Financial, Inc. (BHF) a "Hold" — based on 20 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.
02Which has the better valuation — BHF or LNC or PFG?
On trailing P/E, Lincoln National Corporation (LNC) is the cheapest at 6.
2x versus Principal Financial Group, Inc. at 19. 1x. On forward P/E, Brighthouse Financial, Inc. is actually cheaper at 3. 2x — notably different from the trailing picture, reflecting expected earnings growth. The PEG ratio (P/E divided by earnings growth rate) is the most growth-adjusted single valuation metric: Lincoln National Corporation wins at 0. 14x versus Principal Financial Group, Inc. 's 13. 78x — a PEG below 1. 0 traditionally signals the market is underpricing earnings growth.
03Which is the better long-term investment — BHF or LNC or PFG?
Over the past 5 years, Principal Financial Group, Inc.
(PFG) delivered a total return of +70. 7%, compared to -35. 2% for Lincoln National Corporation (LNC). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: PFG returned +195. 8% versus BHF's -11. 9%. Past returns do not guarantee future results, and the stock with the higher historical return may already have its best growth priced in.
04Which is safer — BHF or LNC or PFG?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Brighthouse Financial, Inc.
(BHF) is the lower-risk stock at 0. 37β versus Lincoln National Corporation's 1. 34β — meaning LNC is approximately 265% more volatile than BHF relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Principal Financial Group, Inc. (PFG) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 34% versus 59% for Lincoln National Corporation — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — BHF or LNC or PFG?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), Brighthouse Financial, Inc.
(BHF) is pulling ahead at 42. 2% versus -3. 1% for Principal Financial Group, Inc. (PFG). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Brighthouse Financial, Inc. grew EPS 24. 8% year-over-year, compared to -68. 3% for Lincoln National Corporation. Over a 3-year CAGR, LNC leads at -1. 3% 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.
06Which has better profit margins — BHF or LNC or PFG?
Principal Financial Group, Inc.
(PFG) is the more profitable company, earning 7. 6% net margin versus 6. 5% for Lincoln National Corporation — meaning it keeps 7. 6% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: PFG leads at 9. 1% versus 7. 3% for LNC. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — BHF leads at 70. 9%, 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.
07Is BHF or LNC or PFG more undervalued right now?
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, Lincoln National Corporation (LNC) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 0. 14x versus Principal Financial Group, Inc. 's 13. 78x. A PEG below 1. 0 is traditionally considered the threshold for growth-adjusted undervaluation. On forward earnings alone, Brighthouse Financial, Inc. (BHF) trades at 3. 2x forward P/E versus 10. 7x for Principal Financial Group, Inc. — 7. 6x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for LNC: 21. 0% to $43. 50.
08Which pays a better dividend — BHF or LNC or PFG?
All stocks in this comparison pay dividends.
Lincoln National Corporation (LNC) offers the highest yield at 4. 9%, versus 2. 9% for Brighthouse Financial, Inc. (BHF).
09Is BHF or LNC or PFG better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, Brighthouse Financial, Inc.
(BHF) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0. 37), 2. 9% yield). Both have compounded well over 10 years (BHF: -11. 9%, LNC: +24. 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.
10What are the main differences between BHF and LNC and PFG?
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.
In terms of investment character: BHF is a small-cap high-growth stock; LNC is a small-cap deep-value stock; PFG is a mid-cap income-oriented stock. 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.
Find Stocks Like These
Explore pre-built screens for each stock's profile, or build a custom screen to find stocks that outperform all of them.
You Might Also Compare
Based on how these companies actually compete and overlap — not just which sector they're filed under.