Insurance - Life
Compare Stocks
4 / 10Stock Comparison
AAME vs GL vs CNO vs MMC
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Insurance - Life
Insurance - Life
Insurance - Brokers
AAME vs GL vs CNO vs MMC — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Insurance - Life | Insurance - Life | Insurance - Life | Insurance - Brokers |
| Market Cap | $53M | $11.96B | $4.30B | $85.27B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $208M | $6.00B | $4.49B | $26.45B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $5M | $1.16B | $222M | $4.13B |
| Gross Margin | 18.9% | 33.4% | 40.2% | 42.3% |
| Operating Margin | 3.2% | 24.4% | 6.3% | 23.2% |
| Forward P/E | — | 9.8x | 10.5x | 16.9x |
| Total Debt | $38M | $2.63B | $4.05B | $21.86B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $36M | $145M | $956M | $2.40B |
AAME vs GL vs CNO vs MMC — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | May 20 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Atlantic American C… (AAME) | 100 | 145.8 | +45.8% |
| Globe Life Inc. (GL) | 100 | 197.9 | +97.9% |
| CNO Financial Group… (CNO) | 100 | 319.9 | +219.9% |
| Marsh & McLennan Co… (MMC) | 100 | 177.7 | +77.7% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: AAME vs GL vs CNO vs MMC
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
AAME is the clearest fit if your priority is sleep-well-at-night.
- Lower volatility, beta 0.40, Low D/E 37.9%, current ratio 8.84x
- +52.7% vs MMC's -22.0%
GL is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if valuation efficiency is your priority.
- PEG 0.63 vs CNO's 4.80
- Lower P/E (9.8x vs 16.9x), PEG 0.63 vs 0.88
- Combined ratio 0.8 vs AAME's 1.0 (lower = better underwriting)
CNO lags the leaders in this set but could rank higher in a more targeted comparison.
MMC carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for income & stability and growth exposure.
- Dividend streak 19 yrs, beta 0.14, yield 1.8%
- Rev growth 7.6%, EPS growth 8.6%, 3Y rev CAGR 7.3%
- 209.8% 10Y total return vs GL's 175.7%
- Beta 0.14, yield 1.8%, current ratio 1.13x
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 7.6% revenue growth vs AAME's 0.8% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (9.8x vs 16.9x), PEG 0.63 vs 0.88 | |
| Quality / Margins | Combined ratio 0.8 vs AAME's 1.0 (lower = better underwriting) | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.14 vs CNO's 0.80 | |
| Dividends | 1.8% yield, 19-year raise streak, vs GL's 0.7% | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +52.7% vs MMC's -22.0% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 7.0% ROA vs CNO's 0.6%, ROIC 15.2% vs 4.0% |
AAME vs GL vs CNO vs MMC — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
AAME vs GL vs CNO vs MMC — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 4 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
GL leads in 1 of 6 categories
MMC leads 1 • CNO leads 1 • AAME leads 0 • 3 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
GL leads this category, winning 3 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
MMC is the larger business by revenue, generating $26.5B annually — 127.0x AAME's $208M. GL is the more profitable business, keeping 19.4% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to AAME's 2.5%. On growth, AAME holds the edge at +20.8% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $208M | $6.0B | $4.5B | $26.5B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $7M | $1.6B | $573M | $7.0B |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | $5M | $1.2B | $222M | $4.1B |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | $24M | $1.3B | $676M | $5.1B |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +18.9% | +33.4% | +40.2% | +42.3% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | +3.2% | +24.4% | +6.3% | +23.2% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | +2.5% | +19.4% | +4.9% | +15.6% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | +11.6% | +20.9% | +15.1% | +19.3% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +20.8% | +3.9% | +4.2% | +11.5% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +127.1% | +9.3% | -39.2% | 0.0% |
Valuation Metrics
Evenly matched — AAME and GL each lead in 3 of 7 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 10.8x trailing earnings, GL trades at a 49% valuation discount to MMC's 21.3x P/E. Adjusting for growth (PEG ratio), GL offers better value at 0.70x vs CNO's 8.97x — a lower PEG means you pay less per unit of expected earnings growth.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $53M | $12.0B | $4.3B | $85.3B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $55M | $14.4B | $7.4B | $104.7B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | -11.22x | 10.84x | 19.53x | 21.28x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | — | 9.81x | 10.45x | 16.89x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | 0.70x | 8.97x | 1.11x |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | — | 9.07x | 14.11x | 15.96x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 0.28x | 1.99x | 0.96x | 3.49x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 0.53x | 2.06x | 1.70x | 6.38x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | 11.50x | 9.54x | 6.37x | 21.39x |
Profitability & Efficiency
MMC leads this category, winning 4 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
MMC delivers a 26.9% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $27 in annual profit, vs $5 for AAME. AAME carries lower financial leverage with a 0.38x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to MMC's 1.62x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), GL scores 8/9 vs AAME's 5/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | +4.9% | +20.6% | +8.6% | +26.9% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | +1.2% | +3.8% | +0.6% | +7.0% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | -3.6% | +13.4% | +4.0% | +15.2% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | -1.4% | +5.2% | +1.5% | +17.8% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 5 | 8 | 6 | 6 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.38x | 0.44x | 1.54x | 1.62x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $2M | $2.5B | $3.1B | $19.5B |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $36M | $145M | $956M | $2.4B |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $38M | $2.6B | $4.1B | $21.9B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | 3.08x | 11.27x | 2.23x | 6.66x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
CNO leads this category, winning 3 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in CNO five years ago would be worth $18,192 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $6,650 for AAME. Over the past 12 months, AAME leads with a +52.7% total return vs MMC's -22.0%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors CNO at 30.2% vs MMC's 0.7% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | -10.4% | +10.6% | +9.2% | -3.6% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | +52.7% | +27.0% | +23.5% | -22.0% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +18.9% | +43.6% | +120.6% | +2.0% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -33.5% | +48.3% | +81.9% | +36.5% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -33.2% | +175.7% | +171.6% | +209.8% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | +5.9% | +12.8% | +30.2% | +0.7% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — CNO and MMC each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
MMC is the less volatile stock with a 0.14 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than CNO's 0.80 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. CNO currently trades 99.1% from its 52-week high vs AAME's 69.5% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 0.40x | 0.48x | 0.80x | 0.14x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $3.71 | $156.69 | $46.33 | $235.78 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $1.57 | $116.73 | $35.24 | $170.37 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +69.5% | +97.3% | +99.1% | +73.8% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 49.3 | 67.2 | 73.0 | 37.2 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 10K | 450K | 561K | 2.7M |
Analyst Outlook
Evenly matched — GL and MMC each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: GL as "Hold", CNO as "Hold", MMC as "Hold". Consensus price targets imply 18.8% upside for MMC (target: $207) vs 1.7% for CNO (target: $47). For income investors, MMC offers the higher dividend yield at 1.75% vs GL's 0.70%.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | — | Hold | Hold | Hold |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | — | $171.25 | $46.67 | $206.75 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | — | 28 | 17 | 26 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | +0.8% | +0.7% | +1.5% | +1.8% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 1 | 23 | 13 | 19 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | $0.02 | $1.06 | $0.68 | $3.05 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | +0.0% | +7.4% | +7.7% | +1.1% |
GL leads in 1 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow). MMC leads in 1 (Profitability & Efficiency). 3 tied.
AAME vs GL vs CNO vs MMC: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is AAME or GL or CNO or MMC a better buy right now?
For growth investors, Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc.
(MMC) is the stronger pick with 7. 6% revenue growth year-over-year, versus 0. 8% for Atlantic American Corporation (AAME). Globe Life Inc. (GL) offers the better valuation at 10. 8x trailing P/E (9. 8x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Globe Life Inc. (GL) a "Hold" — based on 28 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 — AAME or GL or CNO or MMC?
On trailing P/E, Globe Life Inc.
(GL) is the cheapest at 10. 8x versus Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. at 21. 3x. On forward P/E, Globe Life Inc. is actually cheaper at 9. 8x. The PEG ratio (P/E divided by earnings growth rate) is the most growth-adjusted single valuation metric: Globe Life Inc. wins at 0. 63x versus CNO Financial Group, Inc. 's 4. 80x — a PEG below 1. 0 traditionally signals the market is underpricing earnings growth.
03Which is the better long-term investment — AAME or GL or CNO or MMC?
Over the past 5 years, CNO Financial Group, Inc.
(CNO) delivered a total return of +81. 9%, compared to -33. 5% for Atlantic American Corporation (AAME). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: MMC returned +209. 8% versus AAME's -33. 2%. 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 — AAME or GL or CNO or MMC?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc.
(MMC) is the lower-risk stock at 0. 14β versus CNO Financial Group, Inc. 's 0. 80β — meaning CNO is approximately 484% more volatile than MMC relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Atlantic American Corporation (AAME) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 38% versus 162% for Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — AAME or GL or CNO or MMC?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc.
(MMC) is pulling ahead at 7. 6% versus 0. 8% for Atlantic American Corporation (AAME). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Globe Life Inc. grew EPS 17. 8% year-over-year, compared to -724. 4% for Atlantic American Corporation. Over a 3-year CAGR, CNO leads at 7. 9% 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 — AAME or GL or CNO or MMC?
Globe Life Inc.
(GL) is the more profitable company, earning 19. 4% net margin versus -2. 3% for Atlantic American Corporation — meaning it keeps 19. 4% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: GL leads at 24. 4% versus -2. 8% for AAME. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — CNO leads at 44. 8%, 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 AAME or GL or CNO or MMC 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, Globe Life Inc. (GL) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 0. 63x versus CNO Financial Group, Inc. 's 4. 80x. A PEG below 1. 0 is traditionally considered the threshold for growth-adjusted undervaluation. On forward earnings alone, Globe Life Inc. (GL) trades at 9. 8x forward P/E versus 16. 9x for Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. — 7. 1x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for MMC: 18. 8% to $206. 75.
08Which pays a better dividend — AAME or GL or CNO or MMC?
All stocks in this comparison pay dividends.
Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. (MMC) offers the highest yield at 1. 8%, versus 0. 7% for Globe Life Inc. (GL).
09Is AAME or GL or CNO or MMC better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc.
(MMC) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0. 14), 1. 8% yield, +209. 8% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (MMC: +209. 8%, CNO: +171. 6%), 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 AAME and GL and CNO and MMC?
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: AAME is a small-cap quality compounder stock; GL is a mid-cap deep-value stock; CNO is a small-cap quality compounder stock; MMC is a mid-cap quality compounder 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.
- Sector: Financial Services
- Market Cap > $100B
- Revenue Growth > 10%
- Dividend Yield > 0.5%
You Might Also Compare
Based on how these companies actually compete and overlap — not just which sector they're filed under.