Insurance - Life
Compare Stocks
4 / 10Stock Comparison
AFL vs CNO vs MET vs GL
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Insurance - Life
Insurance - Life
Insurance - Life
AFL vs CNO vs MET vs GL — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Insurance - Life | Insurance - Life | Insurance - Life | Insurance - Life |
| Market Cap | $58.52B | $4.30B | $51.39B | $11.96B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $17.36B | $4.49B | $76.94B | $6.00B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $3.65B | $222M | $3.62B | $1.16B |
| Gross Margin | 38.7% | 40.2% | 28.4% | 33.4% |
| Operating Margin | 26.3% | 6.3% | 6.3% | 24.4% |
| Forward P/E | 15.8x | 10.5x | 8.0x | 9.8x |
| Total Debt | $8.41B | $4.05B | $20.18B | $2.63B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $6.25B | $956M | $22.03B | $145M |
AFL vs CNO vs MET vs GL — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | May 20 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Aflac Incorporated (AFL) | 100 | 311.5 | +211.5% |
| CNO Financial Group… (CNO) | 100 | 319.9 | +219.9% |
| MetLife, Inc. (MET) | 100 | 218.9 | +118.9% |
| Globe Life Inc. (GL) | 100 | 197.9 | +97.9% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: AFL vs CNO vs MET vs GL
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
AFL carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for income & stability and long-term compounding.
- Dividend streak 37 yrs, beta 0.19, yield 2.0%
- 272.5% 10Y total return vs GL's 175.7%
- Combined ratio 0.7 vs MET's 0.9 (lower = better underwriting)
- Beta 0.19 vs MET's 1.09, lower leverage
CNO lags the leaders in this set but could rank higher in a more targeted comparison.
MET is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if growth exposure is your priority.
- Rev growth 10.2%, EPS growth -19.2%, 3Y rev CAGR 4.3%
- 10.2% revenue growth vs AFL's -8.8%
- Lower P/E (8.0x vs 15.8x)
GL is the clearest fit if your priority is sleep-well-at-night and valuation efficiency.
- Lower volatility, beta 0.48, Low D/E 43.9%, current ratio 9.66x
- PEG 0.63 vs AFL's 33.17
- Beta 0.48, yield 0.7%, current ratio 9.66x
- +27.0% vs MET's +4.9%
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 10.2% revenue growth vs AFL's -8.8% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (8.0x vs 15.8x) | |
| Quality / Margins | Combined ratio 0.7 vs MET's 0.9 (lower = better underwriting) | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.19 vs MET's 1.09, lower leverage | |
| Dividends | 2.0% yield, 37-year raise streak, vs MET's 2.9% | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +27.0% vs MET's +4.9% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 3.8% ROA vs MET's 0.5%, ROIC 13.4% vs 13.1% |
AFL vs CNO vs MET vs GL — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
AFL vs CNO vs MET vs GL — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 4 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
MET leads in 2 of 6 categories
GL leads 1 • AFL leads 0 • CNO leads 0 • 3 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
MET leads this category, winning 3 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
MET is the larger business by revenue, generating $76.9B annually — 17.1x CNO's $4.5B. AFL is the more profitable business, keeping 21.0% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to MET's 4.7%. On growth, MET holds the edge at +4.4% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $17.4B | $4.5B | $76.9B | $6.0B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $5.5B | $573M | $5.9B | $1.6B |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | $3.6B | $222M | $3.6B | $1.2B |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | $2.6B | $676M | $16.5B | $1.3B |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +38.7% | +40.2% | +28.4% | +33.4% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | +26.3% | +6.3% | +6.3% | +24.4% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | +21.0% | +4.9% | +4.7% | +19.4% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | +14.7% | +15.1% | +21.5% | +20.9% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -10.9% | +4.2% | +4.4% | +3.9% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -24.3% | -39.2% | +35.9% | +9.3% |
Valuation Metrics
MET leads this category, winning 4 of 7 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 10.8x trailing earnings, GL trades at a 44% valuation discount to CNO's 19.5x P/E. Adjusting for growth (PEG ratio), GL offers better value at 0.70x vs AFL's 33.17x — a lower PEG means you pay less per unit of expected earnings growth.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $58.5B | $4.3B | $51.4B | $12.0B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $60.7B | $7.4B | $49.5B | $14.4B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | 16.63x | 19.53x | 16.42x | 10.84x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | 15.76x | 10.45x | 8.05x | 9.81x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | 33.17x | 8.97x | — | 0.70x |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 11.00x | 14.11x | 8.66x | 9.07x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 3.36x | 0.96x | 0.67x | 1.99x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 2.05x | 1.70x | 1.81x | 2.06x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | 22.90x | 6.37x | 2.84x | 9.54x |
Profitability & Efficiency
GL leads this category, winning 6 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 $9 for CNO. AFL carries lower financial leverage with a 0.29x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to CNO's 1.54x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), MET scores 8/9 vs AFL's 4/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | +13.1% | +8.6% | +12.7% | +20.6% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | +3.0% | +0.6% | +0.5% | +3.8% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | +11.8% | +4.0% | +13.1% | +13.4% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | +4.0% | +1.5% | +1.0% | +5.2% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 4 | 6 | 8 | 8 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.29x | 1.54x | 0.70x | 0.44x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $2.2B | $3.1B | -$1.8B | $2.5B |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $6.2B | $956M | $22.0B | $145M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $8.4B | $4.1B | $20.2B | $2.6B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | 21.00x | 2.23x | 5.51x | 11.27x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
Evenly matched — AFL and CNO and GL each lead in 2 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in AFL five years ago would be worth $21,884 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $13,291 for MET. Over the past 12 months, GL leads with a +27.0% total return vs MET's +4.9%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors CNO at 30.2% vs GL's 12.8% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | +3.6% | +9.2% | -1.2% | +10.6% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | +8.4% | +23.5% | +4.9% | +27.0% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +77.1% | +120.6% | +58.9% | +43.6% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +118.8% | +81.9% | +32.9% | +48.3% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +272.5% | +171.6% | +153.9% | +175.7% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | +21.0% | +30.2% | +16.7% | +12.8% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — AFL and CNO each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
AFL is the less volatile stock with a 0.19 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than MET's 1.09 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 MET's 94.2% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 0.19x | 0.80x | 1.09x | 0.48x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $119.32 | $46.33 | $83.64 | $156.69 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $96.95 | $35.24 | $67.33 | $116.73 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +95.2% | +99.1% | +94.2% | +97.3% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 51.0 | 73.0 | 67.1 | 67.2 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 2.1M | 561K | 3.5M | 450K |
Analyst Outlook
Evenly matched — AFL and MET each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: AFL as "Hold", CNO as "Hold", MET as "Buy", GL as "Hold". Consensus price targets imply 22.4% upside for MET (target: $97) vs -2.4% for AFL (target: $111). For income investors, MET offers the higher dividend yield at 2.88% vs GL's 0.70%.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Hold | Hold | Buy | Hold |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $110.83 | $46.67 | $96.50 | $171.25 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 32 | 17 | 33 | 28 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | +2.0% | +1.5% | +2.9% | +0.7% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 37 | 13 | 13 | 23 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | $2.25 | $0.68 | $2.27 | $1.06 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | +6.0% | +7.7% | +7.6% | +7.4% |
MET leads in 2 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow, Valuation Metrics). GL leads in 1 (Profitability & Efficiency). 3 tied.
AFL vs CNO vs MET vs GL: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is AFL or CNO or MET or GL a better buy right now?
For growth investors, MetLife, Inc.
(MET) is the stronger pick with 10. 2% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -8. 8% for Aflac Incorporated (AFL). 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 MetLife, Inc. (MET) a "Buy" — based on 33 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 — AFL or CNO or MET or GL?
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, MetLife, Inc. is actually cheaper at 8. 0x — 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: Globe Life Inc. wins at 0. 63x versus Aflac Incorporated's 33. 17x — a PEG below 1. 0 traditionally signals the market is underpricing earnings growth.
03Which is the better long-term investment — AFL or CNO or MET or GL?
Over the past 5 years, Aflac Incorporated (AFL) delivered a total return of +118.
8%, compared to +32. 9% for MetLife, Inc. (MET). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: AFL returned +272. 5% versus MET's +153. 9%. 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 — AFL or CNO or MET or GL?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Aflac Incorporated (AFL) is the lower-risk stock at 0.
19β versus MetLife, Inc. 's 1. 09β — meaning MET is approximately 487% more volatile than AFL relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Aflac Incorporated (AFL) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 29% versus 154% for CNO Financial Group, Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — AFL or CNO or MET or GL?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), MetLife, Inc.
(MET) is pulling ahead at 10. 2% versus -8. 8% for Aflac Incorporated (AFL). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Globe Life Inc. grew EPS 17. 8% year-over-year, compared to -37. 2% for CNO Financial Group, Inc.. 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 — AFL or CNO or MET or GL?
Aflac Incorporated (AFL) is the more profitable company, earning 20.
9% net margin versus 4. 4% for MetLife, Inc. — meaning it keeps 20. 9% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: AFL leads at 26. 6% versus 6. 0% for MET. 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 AFL or CNO or MET 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, Globe Life Inc. (GL) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 0. 63x versus Aflac Incorporated's 33. 17x. A PEG below 1. 0 is traditionally considered the threshold for growth-adjusted undervaluation. On forward earnings alone, MetLife, Inc. (MET) trades at 8. 0x forward P/E versus 15. 8x for Aflac Incorporated — 7. 7x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for MET: 22. 4% to $96. 50.
08Which pays a better dividend — AFL or CNO or MET or GL?
All stocks in this comparison pay dividends.
MetLife, Inc. (MET) offers the highest yield at 2. 9%, versus 0. 7% for Globe Life Inc. (GL).
09Is AFL or CNO or MET or GL better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, Aflac Incorporated (AFL) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0.
19), 2. 0% yield, +272. 5% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (AFL: +272. 5%, MET: +153. 9%), 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 AFL and CNO and MET 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: AFL is a mid-cap deep-value stock; CNO is a small-cap quality compounder stock; MET is a mid-cap deep-value stock; GL is a mid-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.