Insurance - Diversified
Compare Stocks
2 / 10Stock Comparison
PFG vs MET
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Insurance - Life
PFG vs MET — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | ||
|---|---|---|
| Industry | Insurance - Diversified | Insurance - Life |
| Market Cap | $22.00B | $52.27B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $15.63B | $76.13B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $1.19B | $3.38B |
| Gross Margin | 45.2% | 25.6% |
| Operating Margin | 9.1% | 6.1% |
| Forward P/E | 10.9x | 8.2x |
| Total Debt | $4.20B | $20.18B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $4.43B | $22.03B |
PFG vs MET — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | May 20 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Principal Financial… (PFG) | 100 | 262.9 | +162.9% |
| MetLife, Inc. (MET) | 100 | 222.6 | +122.6% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: PFG vs MET
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
PFG carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for income & stability and long-term compounding.
- Dividend streak 17 yrs, beta 1.00, yield 3.0%
- 197.4% 10Y total return vs MET's 156.8%
- Lower volatility, beta 1.00, Low D/E 33.9%, current ratio 2.35x
MET is the clearest fit if your priority is growth exposure.
- Rev growth 10.2%, EPS growth -19.2%, 3Y rev CAGR 4.3%
- 10.2% revenue growth vs PFG's -3.1%
- Lower P/E (8.2x vs 10.9x)
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 10.2% revenue growth vs PFG's -3.1% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (8.2x vs 10.9x) | |
| Quality / Margins | Combined ratio 0.9 vs MET's 0.9 (lower = better underwriting) | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 1.00 vs MET's 1.09, lower leverage | |
| Dividends | 3.0% yield, 17-year raise streak, vs MET's 2.8% | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +37.1% vs MET's +7.9% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 0.5% ROA vs PFG's 0.4%, ROIC 13.1% vs 9.0% |
PFG vs MET — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
PFG vs MET — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 2 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
PFG leads this category, winning 4 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
MET is the larger business by revenue, generating $76.1B annually — 4.9x PFG's $15.6B. Profitability is closely matched — net margins range from 7.6% (PFG) to 4.4% (MET). On growth, MET holds the edge at +29.1% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $15.6B | $76.1B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $1.4B | $5.7B |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | $1.2B | $3.4B |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | $4.4B | $18.1B |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +45.2% | +25.6% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | +9.1% | +6.1% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | +7.6% | +4.4% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | +28.4% | +23.8% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -3.7% | +29.1% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -40.8% | -34.3% |
Valuation Metrics
MET leads this category, winning 6 of 6 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 16.7x trailing earnings, MET trades at a 14% valuation discount to PFG's 19.3x P/E. On an enterprise value basis, MET's 8.8x EV/EBITDA is more attractive than PFG's 13.1x.
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $22.0B | $52.3B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $21.8B | $50.4B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | 19.34x | 16.70x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | 10.91x | 8.19x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | 13.99x | — |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 13.06x | 8.81x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 1.41x | 0.68x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 1.85x | 1.84x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | 4.96x | 2.89x |
Profitability & Efficiency
MET leads this category, winning 6 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
MET delivers a 11.9% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $12 in annual profit, vs $10 for PFG. PFG carries lower financial leverage with a 0.34x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to MET's 0.70x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), MET scores 8/9 vs PFG's 6/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | +9.9% | +11.9% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | +0.4% | +0.5% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | +9.0% | +13.1% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | +0.4% | +1.0% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 6 | 8 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.34x | 0.70x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | -$227M | -$1.8B |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $4.4B | $22.0B |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $4.2B | $20.2B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | 644.64x | 5.39x |
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 $17,323 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $13,534 for MET. Over the past 12 months, PFG leads with a +37.1% total return vs MET's +7.9%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors MET at 17.3% vs PFG's 15.6% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | +14.5% | +0.5% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | +37.1% | +7.9% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +54.4% | +61.5% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +73.2% | +35.3% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +197.4% | +156.8% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | +15.6% | +17.3% |
Risk & Volatility
PFG leads this category, winning 2 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
PFG is the less volatile stock with a 1.00 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than MET's 1.09 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500.
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 1.00x | 1.09x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $103.00 | $83.64 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $75.00 | $67.33 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +98.6% | +95.8% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 67.8 | 66.3 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 1.5M | 3.5M |
Analyst Outlook
PFG leads this category, winning 2 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Wall Street rates PFG as "Hold" and MET as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 20.4% upside for MET (target: $97) vs -6.9% for PFG (target: $95). For income investors, PFG offers the higher dividend yield at 2.98% vs MET's 2.83%.
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Hold | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $94.50 | $96.50 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 25 | 33 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | +3.0% | +2.8% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 17 | 13 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | $3.03 | $2.27 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | +4.1% | +7.4% |
PFG leads in 4 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow, Total Returns). MET leads in 2 (Valuation Metrics, Profitability & Efficiency).
PFG vs MET: Frequently Asked Questions
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is PFG or MET a better buy right now?
For growth investors, MetLife, Inc.
(MET) is the stronger pick with 10. 2% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -3. 1% for Principal Financial Group, Inc. (PFG). MetLife, Inc. (MET) offers the better valuation at 16. 7x trailing P/E (8. 2x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate MetLife, Inc. (MET) a "Buy" — based on 33 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 — PFG or MET?
On trailing P/E, MetLife, Inc.
(MET) is the cheapest at 16. 7x versus Principal Financial Group, Inc. at 19. 3x. On forward P/E, MetLife, Inc. is actually cheaper at 8. 2x.
03Which is the better long-term investment — PFG or MET?
Over the past 5 years, Principal Financial Group, Inc.
(PFG) delivered a total return of +73. 2%, compared to +35. 3% for MetLife, Inc. (MET). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: PFG returned +197. 4% versus MET's +156. 8%. 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 — PFG or MET?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Principal Financial Group, Inc.
(PFG) is the lower-risk stock at 1. 00β versus MetLife, Inc. 's 1. 09β — meaning MET is approximately 9% more volatile than PFG relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Principal Financial Group, Inc. (PFG) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 34% versus 70% for MetLife, Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — PFG or MET?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), MetLife, Inc.
(MET) is pulling ahead at 10. 2% versus -3. 1% for Principal Financial Group, Inc. (PFG). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: MetLife, Inc. grew EPS -19. 2% year-over-year, compared to -21. 4% for Principal Financial Group, Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, MET leads at 4. 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 — PFG or MET?
Principal Financial Group, Inc.
(PFG) is the more profitable company, earning 7. 6% net margin versus 4. 4% for MetLife, Inc. — 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 6. 0% for MET. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — PFG leads at 45. 2%, 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 PFG or MET more undervalued right now?
On forward earnings alone, MetLife, Inc.
(MET) trades at 8. 2x forward P/E versus 10. 9x for Principal Financial Group, Inc. — 2. 7x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for MET: 20. 4% to $96. 50.
08Which pays a better dividend — PFG or MET?
All stocks in this comparison pay dividends.
Principal Financial Group, Inc. (PFG) offers the highest yield at 3. 0%, versus 2. 8% for MetLife, Inc. (MET).
09Is PFG or MET better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, Principal Financial Group, Inc.
(PFG) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 1. 00), 3. 0% yield, +197. 4% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (PFG: +197. 4%, MET: +156. 8%), 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 PFG and MET?
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: PFG is a mid-cap quality compounder stock; MET is a mid-cap deep-value 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 both.
You Might Also Compare
Based on how these companies actually compete and overlap — not just which sector they're filed under.