ABL vs CNO vs GL vs FG vs PFG

For growth investors, F&G Annuities & Life, Inc.

(FG) is the stronger pick with 5. 7% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -100. 0% for Abacus Global Management, Inc. (ABL). 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 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.

On trailing P/E, Globe Life Inc.

(GL) is the cheapest at 10. 8x versus CNO Financial Group, Inc. at 19. 5x. On forward P/E, F&G Annuities & Life, Inc. is actually cheaper at 6. 6x — 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 Principal Financial Group, Inc. 's 13. 78x — a PEG below 1. 0 traditionally signals the market is underpricing earnings growth.

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: PFG returned +195. 8% 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.

By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Globe Life Inc.

(GL) is the lower-risk stock at 0. 48β versus Abacus Global Management, Inc. 's 1. 11β — meaning ABL is approximately 130% more volatile than GL relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Principal Financial Group, Inc. (PFG) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 34% versus 154% for CNO Financial Group, Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.

By revenue growth (latest reported year), F&G Annuities & Life, Inc.

(FG) is pulling ahead at 5. 7% 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 -61. 5% for F&G Annuities & Life, Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, FG leads at 36. 8% 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.

Globe Life Inc.

(GL) is the more profitable company, earning 19. 4% net margin versus 0. 0% for Abacus Global Management, Inc. — 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 0. 0% for ABL. 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.

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 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, F&G Annuities & Life, Inc. (FG) trades at 6. 6x forward P/E versus 10. 7x for Principal Financial Group, Inc. — 4. 1x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for ABL: 36. 0% to $11. 00.

In this comparison, FG (3.

8% yield), PFG (3. 0% yield), CNO (1. 5% yield), GL (0. 7% yield) pay a dividend. ABL does not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.

For long-horizon retirement investors, Globe Life Inc.

(GL) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0. 48), 0. 7% yield, +175. 7% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (GL: +175. 7%, 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.

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: ABL is a small-cap quality compounder stock; CNO is a small-cap quality compounder stock; GL is a mid-cap deep-value stock; FG is a small-cap deep-value stock; PFG is a mid-cap income-oriented stock. CNO, GL, FG, PFG pay 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.