Insurance - Specialty
Compare Stocks
5 / 10Stock Comparison
ACT vs FNF vs FAF vs MTG vs RDN
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Insurance - Specialty
Insurance - Specialty
Insurance - Specialty
Insurance - Specialty
ACT vs FNF vs FAF vs MTG vs RDN — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Insurance - Specialty | Insurance - Specialty | Insurance - Specialty | Insurance - Specialty | Insurance - Specialty |
| Market Cap | $6.10B | $13.53B | $7.14B | $5.62B | $5.13B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $1.24B | $14.26B | $6.01B | $1.20B | $1.25B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $676M | $602M | $673M | $718M | $583M |
| Gross Margin | 59.9% | 65.1% | 74.3% | 93.6% | 92.3% |
| Operating Margin | 69.4% | 9.8% | 14.8% | 75.4% | 61.2% |
| Forward P/E | 9.0x | 8.7x | 10.9x | 8.6x | 7.6x |
| Total Debt | $744M | $4.77B | $1.91B | $646M | $1.13B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $582M | $2.38B | $1.39B | $376M | $25M |
ACT vs FNF vs FAF vs MTG vs RDN — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | Sep 21 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Enact Holdings, Inc. (ACT) | 100 | 197.1 | +97.1% |
| Fidelity National F… (FNF) | 100 | 115.4 | +15.4% |
| First American Fina… (FAF) | 100 | 104.1 | +4.1% |
| MGIC Investment Cor… (MTG) | 100 | 177.7 | +77.7% |
| Radian Group Inc. (RDN) | 100 | 165.6 | +65.6% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: ACT vs FNF vs FAF vs MTG vs RDN
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
ACT has the current edge in this matchup, primarily because of its strength in sleep-well-at-night and defensive.
- Lower volatility, beta 0.28, Low D/E 13.9%, current ratio 6.86x
- Beta 0.28, yield 1.9%, current ratio 6.86x
- Beta 0.28 vs FAF's 0.59, lower leverage
- +20.6% vs FNF's -18.7%
FNF ranks third and is worth considering specifically for dividends.
- 4.0% yield, 10-year raise streak, vs FAF's 3.1%
FAF is the clearest fit if your priority is growth exposure.
- Rev growth 21.6%, EPS growth 376.2%, 3Y rev CAGR -0.7%
- 21.6% revenue growth vs RDN's -3.4%
MTG is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if long-term compounding and valuation efficiency is your priority.
- 333.0% 10Y total return vs RDN's 250.2%
- PEG 0.44 vs ACT's 0.61
- Combined ratio 0.2 vs FNF's 0.9 (lower = better underwriting)
- 11.0% ROA vs FNF's 0.6%, ROIC 12.7% vs 10.1%
RDN is the clearest fit if your priority is income & stability.
- Dividend streak 11 yrs, beta 0.37, yield 2.8%
- Lower P/E (7.6x vs 10.9x)
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 21.6% revenue growth vs RDN's -3.4% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (7.6x vs 10.9x) | |
| Quality / Margins | Combined ratio 0.2 vs FNF's 0.9 (lower = better underwriting) | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.28 vs FAF's 0.59, lower leverage | |
| Dividends | 4.0% yield, 10-year raise streak, vs FAF's 3.1% | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +20.6% vs FNF's -18.7% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 11.0% ROA vs FNF's 0.6%, ROIC 12.7% vs 10.1% |
ACT vs FNF vs FAF vs MTG vs RDN — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
Segment breakdown not available.
Segment breakdown not available.
ACT vs FNF vs FAF vs MTG vs RDN — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 5 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
MTG leads in 3 of 6 categories
ACT leads 1 • FNF leads 0 • FAF leads 0 • RDN leads 0 • 2 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
MTG leads this category, winning 4 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
FNF is the larger business by revenue, generating $14.3B annually — 11.8x MTG's $1.2B. MTG is the more profitable business, keeping 59.6% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to FNF's 4.2%. On growth, FNF holds the edge at +15.2% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $1.2B | $14.3B | $6.0B | $1.2B | $1.2B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $898M | $2.2B | $1.1B | $913M | $807M |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | $676M | $602M | $673M | $718M | $583M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | $722M | $6.0B | $824M | $705M | $116M |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +59.9% | +65.1% | +74.3% | +93.6% | +92.3% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | +69.4% | +9.8% | +14.8% | +75.4% | +61.2% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | +54.6% | +4.2% | +11.2% | +59.6% | +46.7% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | +58.2% | +42.4% | +13.7% | +58.5% | +9.3% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +1.7% | +15.2% | -90.9% | -3.0% | -5.0% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +9.3% | -126.1% | +70.4% | +1.3% | +17.3% |
Valuation Metrics
MTG leads this category, winning 3 of 7 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 8.5x trailing earnings, MTG trades at a 63% valuation discount to FNF's 22.7x P/E. Adjusting for growth (PEG ratio), MTG offers better value at 0.43x vs ACT's 0.65x — a lower PEG means you pay less per unit of expected earnings growth.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $6.1B | $13.5B | $7.1B | $5.6B | $5.1B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $6.3B | $15.9B | $7.7B | $5.9B | $6.2B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | 9.56x | 22.75x | 11.63x | 8.46x | 9.09x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | 8.95x | 8.69x | 10.87x | 8.64x | 7.63x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | 0.65x | — | — | 0.43x | 0.58x |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 6.89x | 7.00x | 7.34x | 6.30x | 7.73x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 4.96x | 0.93x | 0.96x | 4.63x | 4.11x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 1.21x | 1.52x | 1.32x | 1.17x | 1.09x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | 8.42x | 2.12x | 9.36x | 6.60x | 15.23x |
Profitability & Efficiency
MTG leads this category, winning 7 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
MTG delivers a 14.0% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $14 in annual profit, vs $7 for FNF. MTG carries lower financial leverage with a 0.13x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to FNF's 0.53x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), FAF scores 8/9 vs RDN's 5/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | +12.7% | +6.7% | +12.5% | +14.0% | +12.6% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | +9.8% | +0.6% | +4.0% | +11.0% | +6.7% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | +12.1% | +10.1% | +10.7% | +12.7% | +8.9% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | +13.0% | +1.8% | +5.3% | +14.1% | +10.2% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 7 | 7 | 8 | 5 | 5 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.14x | 0.53x | 0.35x | 0.13x | 0.24x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $162M | $2.4B | $519M | $271M | $1.1B |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $582M | $2.4B | $1.4B | $376M | $25M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $744M | $4.8B | $1.9B | $646M | $1.1B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | 17.96x | 6.77x | 6.45x | 27.10x | 12.64x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
ACT leads this category, winning 4 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in ACT five years ago would be worth $23,943 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $12,070 for FAF. Over the past 12 months, ACT leads with a +20.6% total return vs FNF's -18.7%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors ACT at 24.6% vs FAF's 9.3% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | +9.6% | -6.4% | +15.1% | -7.8% | +5.4% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | +20.6% | -18.7% | +17.8% | +4.2% | +14.3% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +93.5% | +63.6% | +30.7% | +91.5% | +63.2% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +139.4% | +33.8% | +20.7% | +101.0% | +77.9% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +139.4% | +170.1% | +138.4% | +333.0% | +250.2% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | +24.6% | +17.8% | +9.3% | +24.2% | +17.7% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — ACT and FAF each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
ACT is the less volatile stock with a 0.28 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than FAF's 0.59 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. FAF currently trades 97.6% from its 52-week high vs FNF's 77.4% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 0.28x | 0.58x | 0.59x | 0.43x | 0.37x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $44.80 | $64.98 | $71.47 | $29.97 | $38.84 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $33.94 | $42.78 | $53.09 | $24.78 | $31.50 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +96.5% | +77.4% | +97.6% | +88.7% | +96.9% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 55.2 | 58.5 | 62.4 | 40.4 | 57.0 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 289K | 1.9M | 945K | 1.9M | 1.2M |
Analyst Outlook
Evenly matched — FNF and FAF each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: ACT as "Hold", FNF as "Buy", FAF as "Buy", MTG as "Buy", RDN as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 33.3% upside for FNF (target: $67) vs 4.1% for ACT (target: $45). For income investors, FNF offers the higher dividend yield at 3.99% vs ACT's 1.87%.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Hold | Buy | Buy | Buy | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $45.00 | $67.00 | $83.00 | $30.00 | $40.00 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 8 | 17 | 15 | 22 | 22 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | +1.9% | +4.0% | +3.1% | +2.2% | +2.8% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 1 | 10 | 15 | 7 | 11 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | $0.81 | $2.01 | $2.15 | $0.59 | $1.06 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | +6.3% | +2.1% | +1.7% | +14.0% | +8.4% |
MTG leads in 3 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow, Valuation Metrics). ACT leads in 1 (Total Returns). 2 tied.
ACT vs FNF vs FAF vs MTG vs RDN: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is ACT or FNF or FAF or MTG or RDN a better buy right now?
For growth investors, First American Financial Corporation (FAF) is the stronger pick with 21.
6% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -3. 4% for Radian Group Inc. (RDN). MGIC Investment Corporation (MTG) offers the better valuation at 8. 5x trailing P/E (8. 6x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Fidelity National Financial, Inc. (FNF) a "Buy" — based on 17 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 — ACT or FNF or FAF or MTG or RDN?
On trailing P/E, MGIC Investment Corporation (MTG) is the cheapest at 8.
5x versus Fidelity National Financial, Inc. at 22. 7x. On forward P/E, Radian Group Inc. is actually cheaper at 7. 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: MGIC Investment Corporation wins at 0. 44x versus Enact Holdings, Inc. 's 0. 61x — a PEG below 1. 0 traditionally signals the market is underpricing earnings growth.
03Which is the better long-term investment — ACT or FNF or FAF or MTG or RDN?
Over the past 5 years, Enact Holdings, Inc.
(ACT) delivered a total return of +139. 4%, compared to +20. 7% for First American Financial Corporation (FAF). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: MTG returned +333. 0% versus FAF's +138. 4%. 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 — ACT or FNF or FAF or MTG or RDN?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Enact Holdings, Inc.
(ACT) is the lower-risk stock at 0. 28β versus First American Financial Corporation's 0. 59β — meaning FAF is approximately 112% more volatile than ACT relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, MGIC Investment Corporation (MTG) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 13% versus 53% for Fidelity National Financial, Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — ACT or FNF or FAF or MTG or RDN?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), First American Financial Corporation (FAF) is pulling ahead at 21.
6% versus -3. 4% for Radian Group Inc. (RDN). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: First American Financial Corporation grew EPS 376. 2% year-over-year, compared to -52. 5% for Fidelity National Financial, Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, FNF leads at 8. 2% 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 — ACT or FNF or FAF or MTG or RDN?
MGIC Investment Corporation (MTG) is the more profitable company, earning 60.
8% net margin versus 4. 2% for Fidelity National Financial, Inc. — meaning it keeps 60. 8% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: MTG leads at 76. 5% versus 9. 9% for FNF. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — FNF leads at 98. 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 ACT or FNF or FAF or MTG or RDN 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, MGIC Investment Corporation (MTG) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 0. 44x versus Enact Holdings, Inc. 's 0. 61x. A PEG below 1. 0 is traditionally considered the threshold for growth-adjusted undervaluation. On forward earnings alone, Radian Group Inc. (RDN) trades at 7. 6x forward P/E versus 10. 9x for First American Financial Corporation — 3. 2x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for FNF: 33. 3% to $67. 00.
08Which pays a better dividend — ACT or FNF or FAF or MTG or RDN?
All stocks in this comparison pay dividends.
Fidelity National Financial, Inc. (FNF) offers the highest yield at 4. 0%, versus 1. 9% for Enact Holdings, Inc. (ACT).
09Is ACT or FNF or FAF or MTG or RDN better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, Enact Holdings, Inc.
(ACT) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0. 28), 1. 9% yield, +139. 4% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (ACT: +139. 4%, FAF: +138. 4%), 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 ACT and FNF and FAF and MTG and RDN?
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: ACT is a small-cap deep-value stock; FNF is a mid-cap income-oriented stock; FAF is a small-cap high-growth stock; MTG is a small-cap deep-value stock; RDN is a small-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 all of them.
You Might Also Compare
Based on how these companies actually compete and overlap — not just which sector they're filed under.