Insurance - Life
Compare Stocks
2 / 10Stock Comparison
ABL vs CNO
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Insurance - Life
ABL vs CNO — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | ||
|---|---|---|
| Industry | Insurance - Life | Insurance - Life |
| Market Cap | $791M | $4.30B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $0.00 | $4.49B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $37M | $222M |
| Gross Margin | — | 40.2% |
| Operating Margin | — | 6.3% |
| Forward P/E | 8.1x | 10.5x |
| Total Debt | $0.00 | $4.05B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $-385K | $956M |
ABL vs CNO — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | Sep 20 | Apr 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abacus Global Manag… (ABL) | 100 | 83.1 | -16.9% |
| CNO Financial Group… (CNO) | 100 | 256.0 | +156.0% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: ABL vs CNO
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
ABL is the clearest fit if your priority is valuation efficiency.
- PEG 0.12 vs CNO's 4.80
- Lower P/E (8.1x vs 10.5x), PEG 0.12 vs 4.80
- 5.6% ROA vs CNO's 0.6%, ROIC 52.3% vs 4.0%
CNO carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for income & stability and growth exposure.
- Dividend streak 13 yrs, beta 0.80, yield 1.5%
- Rev growth 0.9%, EPS growth -37.2%, 3Y rev CAGR 7.9%
- 171.6% 10Y total return vs ABL's -14.6%
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 0.9% revenue growth vs ABL's -100.0% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (8.1x vs 10.5x), PEG 0.12 vs 4.80 | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.80 vs ABL's 1.11 | |
| Dividends | 1.5% yield; 13-year raise streak; the other pay no meaningful dividend | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +23.5% vs ABL's +0.5% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 5.6% ROA vs CNO's 0.6%, ROIC 52.3% vs 4.0% |
ABL vs CNO — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
ABL vs CNO — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 2 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
Evenly matched — ABL and CNO each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
CNO and ABL operate at a comparable scale, with $4.5B and $0 in trailing revenue. On growth, CNO holds the edge at +4.2% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $0 | $4.5B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $107M | $573M |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | $37M | $222M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | -$49M | $676M |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | — | +40.2% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | — | +6.3% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | — | +4.9% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | — | +15.1% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -5.9% | +4.2% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +134.1% | -39.2% |
Valuation Metrics
ABL leads this category, winning 4 of 6 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
Adjusting for growth (PEG ratio), ABL offers better value at 0.12x vs CNO's 8.97x — a lower PEG means you pay less per unit of expected earnings growth. On an enterprise value basis, CNO's 14.1x EV/EBITDA is more attractive than ABL's 148.8x.
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $791M | $4.3B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $1.0B | $7.4B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | -23.79x | 19.53x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | 8.11x | 10.45x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | 0.12x | 8.97x |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 148.79x | 14.11x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 7.07x | 0.96x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 1.35x | 1.70x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | — | 6.37x |
Profitability & Efficiency
ABL leads this category, winning 7 of 8 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
ABL delivers a 11.3% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $11 in annual profit, vs $9 for CNO. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), CNO scores 6/9 vs ABL's 2/9, reflecting solid financial health.
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | +11.3% | +8.6% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | +5.6% | +0.6% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | +52.3% | +4.0% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | +22.0% | +1.5% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 2 | 6 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | — | 1.54x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $384,618 | $3.1B |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | -$384,618 | $956M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $0 | $4.1B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | 3.98x | 2.23x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
CNO leads this category, winning 6 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 $8,459 for ABL. Over the past 12 months, CNO leads with a +23.5% total return vs ABL's +0.5%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors CNO at 30.2% vs ABL's -7.0% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | +2.1% | +9.2% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | +0.5% | +23.5% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -19.5% | +120.6% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -15.4% | +81.9% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -14.6% | +171.6% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | -7.0% | +30.2% |
Risk & Volatility
CNO leads this category, winning 2 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
CNO is the less volatile stock with a 0.80 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than ABL's 1.11 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 ABL's 77.0% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 1.11x | 0.80x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $10.50 | $46.33 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $4.60 | $35.24 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +77.0% | +99.1% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 36.8 | 73.0 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 641K | 561K |
Analyst Outlook
CNO leads this category, winning 1 of 1 comparable metric.
Analyst Outlook
Wall Street rates ABL as "Buy" and CNO as "Hold". Consensus price targets imply 36.0% upside for ABL (target: $11) vs 1.7% for CNO (target: $47). CNO is the only dividend payer here at 1.48% yield — a key consideration for income-focused portfolios.
| Metric | ||
|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Buy | Hold |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $11.00 | $46.67 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 2 | 17 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | — | +1.5% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 0 | 13 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | $0.00 | $0.68 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | +1.4% | +7.7% |
CNO leads in 3 of 6 categories (Total Returns, Risk & Volatility). ABL leads in 2 (Valuation Metrics, Profitability & Efficiency). 1 tied.
ABL vs CNO: Frequently Asked Questions
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is ABL or CNO a better buy right now?
For growth investors, CNO Financial Group, Inc.
(CNO) is the stronger pick with 0. 9% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -100. 0% for Abacus Global Management, Inc. (ABL). CNO Financial Group, Inc. (CNO) offers the better valuation at 19. 5x trailing P/E (10. 5x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Abacus Global Management, Inc. (ABL) a "Buy" — based on 2 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 — ABL or CNO?
On forward P/E, Abacus Global Management, Inc.
is actually cheaper at 8. 1x — 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: Abacus Global Management, Inc. wins at 0. 12x 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 — ABL or CNO?
Over the past 5 years, CNO Financial Group, Inc.
(CNO) delivered a total return of +81. 9%, compared to -15. 4% for Abacus Global Management, Inc. (ABL). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: CNO returned +171. 6% versus ABL's -14. 6%. 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 — ABL or CNO?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), CNO Financial Group, Inc.
(CNO) is the lower-risk stock at 0. 80β versus Abacus Global Management, Inc. 's 1. 11β — meaning ABL is approximately 38% more volatile than CNO relative to the S&P 500.
05Which is growing faster — ABL or CNO?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), CNO Financial Group, Inc.
(CNO) is pulling ahead at 0. 9% versus -100. 0% for Abacus Global Management, Inc. (ABL). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Abacus Global Management, Inc. grew EPS 211. 8% year-over-year, compared to -37. 2% for CNO Financial Group, Inc.. 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 — ABL or CNO?
CNO Financial Group, Inc.
(CNO) is the more profitable company, earning 5. 1% net margin versus 0. 0% for Abacus Global Management, Inc. — meaning it keeps 5. 1% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: CNO leads at 6. 5% versus 0. 0% for ABL. 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 ABL or CNO 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, Abacus Global Management, Inc. (ABL) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 0. 12x 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, Abacus Global Management, Inc. (ABL) trades at 8. 1x forward P/E versus 10. 5x for CNO Financial Group, Inc. — 2. 3x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for ABL: 36. 0% to $11. 00.
08Which pays a better dividend — ABL or CNO?
In this comparison, CNO (1.
5% yield) pays a dividend. ABL does not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
09Is ABL or CNO better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, CNO Financial Group, Inc.
(CNO) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0. 80), 1. 5% yield, +171. 6% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (CNO: +171. 6%, ABL: -14. 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 ABL and CNO?
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.
CNO pays a dividend while ABL does not, making them suitable for different income and tax situations. 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.