Insurance - Life
Compare Stocks
4 / 10Stock Comparison
AFL vs UNM vs MET vs PRU
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Insurance - Life
Insurance - Life
Insurance - Life
AFL vs UNM vs MET vs PRU — 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 | $12.97B | $51.39B | $34.58B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $17.36B | $13.30B | $76.94B | $61.82B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $3.65B | $781M | $3.62B | $3.48B |
| Gross Margin | 38.7% | 33.9% | 28.4% | 30.8% |
| Operating Margin | 26.3% | 7.5% | 6.3% | 8.2% |
| Forward P/E | 15.8x | 9.2x | 8.0x | 7.3x |
| Total Debt | $8.41B | $3.90B | $20.18B | $22.96B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $6.25B | $158M | $22.03B | $19.71B |
AFL vs UNM vs MET vs PRU — 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% |
| Unum Group (UNM) | 100 | 530.1 | +430.1% |
| MetLife, Inc. (MET) | 100 | 218.9 | +118.9% |
| Prudential Financia… (PRU) | 100 | 163.1 | +63.1% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: AFL vs UNM vs MET vs PRU
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 UNM's 177.2%
- Lower volatility, beta 0.19, Low D/E 28.5%
- Combined ratio 0.7 vs MET's 0.9 (lower = better underwriting)
UNM is the clearest fit if your priority is valuation efficiency.
- PEG 4.76 vs AFL's 33.17
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 PRU's -14.0%
PRU is the clearest fit if your priority is defensive.
- Beta 0.97, yield 5.5%, current ratio 0.61x
- Lower P/E (7.3x vs 15.8x)
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 10.2% revenue growth vs PRU's -14.0% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (7.3x 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 PRU's 5.5% | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +8.4% vs UNM's +2.0% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 3.0% ROA vs MET's 0.5%, ROIC 11.8% vs 13.1% |
AFL vs UNM vs MET vs PRU — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
AFL vs UNM vs MET vs PRU — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 4 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
AFL leads in 2 of 6 categories
PRU leads 1 • UNM leads 1 • MET leads 0 • 2 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
AFL 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 — 5.8x UNM's $13.3B. AFL is the more profitable business, keeping 21.0% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to MET's 4.7%. On growth, UNM holds the edge at +9.0% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $17.4B | $13.3B | $76.9B | $61.8B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $5.5B | $1.1B | $5.9B | $5.4B |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | $3.6B | $781M | $3.6B | $3.5B |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | $2.6B | $539M | $16.5B | $9.8B |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +38.7% | +33.9% | +28.4% | +30.8% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | +26.3% | +7.5% | +6.3% | +8.2% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | +21.0% | +5.9% | +4.7% | +5.6% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | +14.7% | +4.1% | +21.5% | +15.8% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -10.9% | +9.0% | +4.4% | +6.3% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -24.3% | +33.0% | +35.9% | -12.8% |
Valuation Metrics
PRU leads this category, winning 5 of 7 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 9.7x trailing earnings, PRU trades at a 48% valuation discount to UNM's 18.8x P/E. Adjusting for growth (PEG ratio), UNM offers better value at 9.73x vs AFL's 33.17x — a lower PEG means you pay less per unit of expected earnings growth.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $58.5B | $13.0B | $51.4B | $34.6B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $60.7B | $16.7B | $49.5B | $37.8B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | 16.63x | 18.76x | 16.42x | 9.73x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | 15.76x | 9.18x | 8.05x | 7.35x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | 33.17x | 9.73x | — | — |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 11.00x | 15.82x | 8.66x | 7.70x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 3.36x | 0.99x | 0.67x | 0.57x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 2.05x | 1.25x | 1.81x | 0.98x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | 22.90x | 23.35x | 2.84x | 5.51x |
Profitability & Efficiency
AFL leads this category, winning 5 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
AFL delivers a 13.1% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $13 in annual profit, vs $7 for UNM. AFL carries lower financial leverage with a 0.29x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to MET's 0.70x. 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% | +7.1% | +12.7% | +10.3% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | +3.0% | +1.6% | +0.5% | +0.6% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | +11.8% | +4.7% | +13.1% | +10.0% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | +4.0% | +1.5% | +1.0% | +0.9% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 4 | 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.29x | 0.35x | 0.70x | 0.65x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $2.2B | $3.7B | -$1.8B | $3.2B |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $6.2B | $158M | $22.0B | $19.7B |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $8.4B | $3.9B | $20.2B | $23.0B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | 21.00x | 5.48x | 5.51x | 4.76x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
UNM leads this category, winning 4 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in UNM five years ago would be worth $29,376 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $11,768 for PRU. Over the past 12 months, AFL leads with a +8.4% total return vs UNM's +2.0%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors UNM at 24.0% vs PRU's 11.7% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | +3.6% | +5.2% | -1.2% | -11.5% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | +8.4% | +2.0% | +4.9% | +3.6% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +77.1% | +90.5% | +58.9% | +39.5% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +118.8% | +193.8% | +32.9% | +17.7% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +272.5% | +177.2% | +153.9% | +89.0% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | +21.0% | +24.0% | +16.7% | +11.7% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — AFL and UNM 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. UNM currently trades 96.6% from its 52-week high vs PRU's 83.0% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 0.19x | 0.48x | 1.09x | 0.97x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $119.32 | $83.13 | $83.64 | $119.76 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $96.95 | $68.28 | $67.33 | $91.89 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +95.2% | +96.6% | +94.2% | +83.0% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 51.0 | 61.0 | 67.1 | 58.1 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 2.1M | 1.5M | 3.5M | 2.3M |
Analyst Outlook
Evenly matched — AFL and PRU each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: AFL as "Hold", UNM as "Hold", MET as "Buy", PRU as "Hold". Consensus price targets imply 22.4% upside for MET (target: $97) vs -2.4% for AFL (target: $111). For income investors, PRU offers the higher dividend yield at 5.54% vs AFL's 1.98%.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Hold | Hold | Buy | Hold |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $110.83 | $98.00 | $96.50 | $104.13 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 32 | 30 | 33 | 37 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | +2.0% | +2.2% | +2.9% | +5.5% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 37 | 20 | 13 | 8 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | $2.25 | $1.77 | $2.27 | $5.50 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | +6.0% | +7.8% | +7.6% | +2.9% |
AFL leads in 2 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow, Profitability & Efficiency). PRU leads in 1 (Valuation Metrics). 2 tied.
AFL vs UNM vs MET vs PRU: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is AFL or UNM or MET or PRU a better buy right now?
For growth investors, MetLife, Inc.
(MET) is the stronger pick with 10. 2% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -14. 0% for Prudential Financial, Inc. (PRU). Prudential Financial, Inc. (PRU) offers the better valuation at 9. 7x trailing P/E (7. 3x 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 UNM or MET or PRU?
On trailing P/E, Prudential Financial, Inc.
(PRU) is the cheapest at 9. 7x versus Unum Group at 18. 8x. On forward P/E, Prudential Financial, Inc. is actually cheaper at 7. 3x. The PEG ratio (P/E divided by earnings growth rate) is the most growth-adjusted single valuation metric: Unum Group wins at 4. 76x versus Aflac Incorporated's 33. 17x.
03Which is the better long-term investment — AFL or UNM or MET or PRU?
Over the past 5 years, Unum Group (UNM) delivered a total return of +193.
8%, compared to +17. 7% for Prudential Financial, Inc. (PRU). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: AFL returned +272. 5% versus PRU's +89. 0%. 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 UNM or MET or PRU?
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 70% for MetLife, Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — AFL or UNM or MET or PRU?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), MetLife, Inc.
(MET) is pulling ahead at 10. 2% versus -14. 0% for Prudential Financial, Inc. (PRU). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Prudential Financial, Inc. grew EPS 36. 3% year-over-year, compared to -54. 8% for Unum Group. Over a 3-year CAGR, MET leads at 4. 3% 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 UNM or MET or PRU?
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 — PRU leads at 42. 0%, 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 UNM or MET or PRU 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, Unum Group (UNM) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 4. 76x versus Aflac Incorporated's 33. 17x. Both stocks trade at elevated growth-adjusted valuations, so expected growth needs to materialise. On forward earnings alone, Prudential Financial, Inc. (PRU) trades at 7. 3x forward P/E versus 15. 8x for Aflac Incorporated — 8. 4x 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 UNM or MET or PRU?
All stocks in this comparison pay dividends.
Prudential Financial, Inc. (PRU) offers the highest yield at 5. 5%, versus 2. 0% for Aflac Incorporated (AFL).
09Is AFL or UNM or MET or PRU 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 UNM and MET and PRU?
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; UNM is a mid-cap quality compounder stock; MET is a mid-cap deep-value stock; PRU 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.