Insurance - Life
Compare Stocks
5 / 10Stock Comparison
ABL vs LPLA vs HIFS vs CRBG vs GL
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Financial - Capital Markets
Banks - Regional
Asset Management
Insurance - Life
ABL vs LPLA vs HIFS vs CRBG vs GL — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Insurance - Life | Financial - Capital Markets | Banks - Regional | Asset Management | Insurance - Life |
| Market Cap | $791M | $24.83B | $626M | $12.54B | $11.96B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $0.00 | $16.99B | $217M | $2.89B | $6.00B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $37M | $863M | $45M | $245M | $1.16B |
| Gross Margin | — | 25.6% | 30.1% | 80.9% | 33.4% |
| Operating Margin | — | 13.4% | 16.8% | -18.7% | 24.4% |
| Forward P/E | 8.1x | 13.8x | 20.4x | 5.6x | 9.8x |
| Total Debt | $0.00 | $7.26B | $1.50B | $10.91B | $2.63B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $-385K | $1.04B | $352M | $447M | $145M |
ABL vs LPLA vs HIFS vs CRBG vs GL — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | Sep 22 | Apr 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abacus Global Manag… (ABL) | 100 | 80.5 | -19.5% |
| LPL Financial Holdi… (LPLA) | 100 | 137.7 | +37.7% |
| Hingham Institution… (HIFS) | 100 | 113.8 | +13.8% |
| Corebridge Financia… (CRBG) | 100 | 121.2 | +21.2% |
| Globe Life Inc. (GL) | 100 | 139.6 | +39.6% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: ABL vs LPLA vs HIFS vs CRBG vs GL
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
ABL ranks third and is worth considering specifically for valuation efficiency.
- PEG 0.12 vs LPLA's 1.04
- 5.6% ROA vs CRBG's 0.1%, ROIC 52.3% vs -1.6%
LPLA is the clearest fit if your priority is growth exposure and long-term compounding.
- Rev growth 37.2%, EPS growth -22.2%
- 12.4% 10Y total return vs GL's 175.7%
- 37.2% NII/revenue growth vs ABL's -100.0%
HIFS is the clearest fit if your priority is bank quality.
- NIM 1.0% vs CRBG's 0.6%
CRBG is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if value and dividends is your priority.
- Lower P/E (5.6x vs 9.8x)
- 3.5% yield, 1-year raise streak, vs GL's 0.7%, (1 stock pays no dividend)
GL carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for income & stability and sleep-well-at-night.
- Dividend streak 23 yrs, beta 0.48, yield 0.7%
- Lower volatility, beta 0.48, Low D/E 43.9%, current ratio 9.66x
- Beta 0.48, yield 0.7%, current ratio 9.66x
- 19.4% margin vs CRBG's -12.7%
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 37.2% NII/revenue growth vs ABL's -100.0% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (5.6x vs 9.8x) | |
| Quality / Margins | 19.4% margin vs CRBG's -12.7% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.48 vs CRBG's 1.47, lower leverage | |
| Dividends | 3.5% yield, 1-year raise streak, vs GL's 0.7%, (1 stock pays no dividend) | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +27.0% vs CRBG's -9.4% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 5.6% ROA vs CRBG's 0.1%, ROIC 52.3% vs -1.6% |
ABL vs LPLA vs HIFS vs CRBG vs GL — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
Segment breakdown not available.
ABL vs LPLA vs HIFS vs CRBG vs GL — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 5 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
GL leads in 2 of 6 categories
CRBG leads 1 • ABL leads 1 • LPLA leads 0 • HIFS leads 0 • 2 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)
LPLA and ABL operate at a comparable scale, with $17.0B and $0 in trailing revenue. GL is the more profitable business, keeping 19.4% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to CRBG's -12.7%. On growth, GL holds the edge at +3.9% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $0 | $17.0B | $217M | $2.9B | $6.0B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $107M | $2.3B | $62M | $1.0B | $1.6B |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | $37M | $863M | $45M | $245M | $1.2B |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | -$49M | -$1.1B | $30M | $1.6B | $1.3B |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | — | +25.6% | +30.1% | +80.9% | +33.4% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | — | +13.4% | +16.8% | -18.7% | +24.4% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | — | +5.1% | +13.0% | -12.7% | +19.4% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | — | -5.8% | +5.4% | +70.0% | +20.9% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -5.9% | — | — | — | +3.9% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +134.1% | +4.2% | +195.1% | +90.8% | +9.3% |
Valuation Metrics
CRBG leads this category, winning 4 of 7 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 10.8x trailing earnings, GL trades at a 62% valuation discount to LPLA's 28.4x P/E. Adjusting for growth (PEG ratio), ABL offers better value at 0.12x vs LPLA's 2.14x — a lower PEG means you pay less per unit of expected earnings growth.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $791M | $24.8B | $626M | $12.5B | $12.0B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $1.0B | $31.0B | $1.8B | $23.0B | $14.4B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | -23.79x | 28.35x | 22.33x | -40.37x | 10.84x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | 8.11x | 13.77x | 20.43x | 5.59x | 9.81x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | 0.12x | 2.14x | — | — | 0.70x |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 148.79x | 10.65x | 47.53x | 1533.08x | 9.07x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 7.07x | 1.46x | 2.88x | 4.34x | 1.99x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 1.35x | 4.58x | 1.46x | 1.06x | 2.06x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | — | — | 53.27x | 6.20x | 9.54x |
Profitability & Efficiency
ABL leads this category, winning 5 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
GL delivers a 20.6% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $21 in annual profit, vs $2 for CRBG. GL carries lower financial leverage with a 0.44x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to HIFS's 3.47x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), GL scores 8/9 vs ABL's 2/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | +11.3% | +18.6% | +9.8% | +1.8% | +20.6% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | +5.6% | +5.1% | +1.0% | +0.1% | +3.8% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | +52.3% | +16.1% | +1.4% | -1.6% | +13.4% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | +22.0% | +19.1% | +2.2% | -0.1% | +5.2% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 2 | 3 | 5 | 6 | 8 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | — | 1.36x | 3.47x | 0.78x | 0.44x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $384,618 | $6.2B | $1.1B | $10.5B | $2.5B |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | -$384,618 | $1.0B | $352M | $447M | $145M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $0 | $7.3B | $1.5B | $10.9B | $2.6B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | 3.98x | 3.85x | 0.44x | 1.79x | 11.27x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
Evenly matched — LPLA and CRBG and GL each lead in 2 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in LPLA five years ago would be worth $20,210 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $8,459 for ABL. Over the past 12 months, GL leads with a +27.0% total return vs CRBG's -9.4%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors CRBG at 24.2% vs ABL's -7.0% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | +2.1% | -14.3% | +6.3% | -8.8% | +10.6% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | +0.5% | -7.1% | +14.4% | -9.4% | +27.0% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -19.5% | +62.2% | +61.9% | +91.6% | +43.6% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -15.4% | +102.1% | -1.9% | +57.9% | +48.3% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -14.6% | +1240.6% | +142.5% | +57.9% | +175.7% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | -7.0% | +17.5% | +17.4% | +24.2% | +12.8% |
Risk & Volatility
GL leads this category, winning 2 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
GL is the less volatile stock with a 0.48 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than CRBG's 1.47 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. GL currently trades 97.3% from its 52-week high vs CRBG's 75.1% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 1.11x | 1.10x | 1.25x | 1.47x | 0.48x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $10.50 | $403.58 | $338.00 | $36.57 | $156.69 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $4.60 | $281.51 | $220.76 | $22.19 | $116.73 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +77.0% | +76.7% | +84.9% | +75.1% | +97.3% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 36.8 | 53.3 | 51.0 | 63.5 | 67.2 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 641K | 875K | 51K | 5.5M | 450K |
Analyst Outlook
Evenly matched — CRBG and GL each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: ABL as "Buy", LPLA as "Buy", CRBG as "Buy", GL as "Hold". Consensus price targets imply 42.4% upside for LPLA (target: $441) vs 12.3% for GL (target: $171). For income investors, CRBG offers the higher dividend yield at 3.45% vs LPLA's 0.39%.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Buy | Buy | — | Buy | Hold |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $11.00 | $441.00 | — | $33.83 | $171.25 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 2 | 22 | — | 18 | 28 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | — | +0.4% | +0.9% | +3.5% | +0.7% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 0 | 4 | 0 | 1 | 23 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | $0.00 | $1.19 | $2.50 | $0.95 | $1.06 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | +1.4% | +0.5% | 0.0% | +16.9% | +7.4% |
GL leads in 2 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow, Risk & Volatility). CRBG leads in 1 (Valuation Metrics). 2 tied.
ABL vs LPLA vs HIFS vs CRBG vs GL: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is ABL or LPLA or HIFS or CRBG or GL a better buy right now?
For growth investors, LPL Financial Holdings Inc.
(LPLA) is the stronger pick with 37. 2% 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.
02Which has the better valuation — ABL or LPLA or HIFS or CRBG or GL?
On trailing P/E, Globe Life Inc.
(GL) is the cheapest at 10. 8x versus LPL Financial Holdings Inc. at 28. 4x. On forward P/E, Corebridge Financial, Inc. is actually cheaper at 5. 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 LPL Financial Holdings Inc. 's 1. 04x — a PEG below 1. 0 traditionally signals the market is underpricing earnings growth.
03Which is the better long-term investment — ABL or LPLA or HIFS or CRBG or GL?
Over the past 5 years, LPL Financial Holdings Inc.
(LPLA) delivered a total return of +102. 1%, compared to -15. 4% for Abacus Global Management, Inc. (ABL). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: LPLA returned +1241% 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 LPLA or HIFS or CRBG or GL?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Globe Life Inc.
(GL) is the lower-risk stock at 0. 48β versus Corebridge Financial, Inc. 's 1. 47β — meaning CRBG is approximately 206% more volatile than GL relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Globe Life Inc. (GL) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 44% versus 3% for Hingham Institution for Savings — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — ABL or LPLA or HIFS or CRBG or GL?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), LPL Financial Holdings Inc.
(LPLA) is pulling ahead at 37. 2% 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 -118. 3% for Corebridge Financial, 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 LPLA or HIFS or CRBG or GL?
Globe Life Inc.
(GL) is the more profitable company, earning 19. 4% net margin versus -12. 7% for Corebridge Financial, 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 -18. 7% for CRBG. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — CRBG leads at 80. 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 ABL or LPLA or HIFS or CRBG or GL 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 LPL Financial Holdings Inc. 's 1. 04x. A PEG below 1. 0 is traditionally considered the threshold for growth-adjusted undervaluation. On forward earnings alone, Corebridge Financial, Inc. (CRBG) trades at 5. 6x forward P/E versus 20. 4x for Hingham Institution for Savings — 14. 8x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for LPLA: 42. 4% to $441. 00.
08Which pays a better dividend — ABL or LPLA or HIFS or CRBG or GL?
In this comparison, CRBG (3.
5% yield), HIFS (0. 9% yield), GL (0. 7% yield), LPLA (0. 4% yield) pay a dividend. ABL does not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
09Is ABL or LPLA or HIFS or CRBG or GL better for a retirement portfolio?
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.
10What are the main differences between ABL and LPLA and HIFS and CRBG and GL?
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; LPLA is a mid-cap high-growth stock; HIFS is a small-cap quality compounder stock; CRBG is a mid-cap income-oriented stock; GL is a mid-cap deep-value stock. HIFS, CRBG, GL pay a dividend while ABL, LPLA do 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 all of them.
You Might Also Compare
Based on how these companies actually compete and overlap — not just which sector they're filed under.