Insurance - Specialty
Compare Stocks
5 / 10Stock Comparison
AIZ vs GL vs PRU vs CNO vs MET
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Insurance - Life
Insurance - Life
Insurance - Life
Insurance - Life
AIZ vs GL vs PRU vs CNO vs MET — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Insurance - Specialty | Insurance - Life | Insurance - Life | Insurance - Life | Insurance - Life |
| Market Cap | $11.64B | $11.96B | $34.58B | $4.30B | $51.39B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $13.16B | $6.00B | $61.82B | $4.49B | $76.94B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $1.00B | $1.16B | $3.48B | $222M | $3.62B |
| Gross Margin | 77.8% | 33.4% | 30.8% | 40.2% | 28.4% |
| Operating Margin | 9.4% | 24.4% | 8.2% | 6.3% | 6.3% |
| Forward P/E | 11.4x | 9.8x | 7.3x | 10.5x | 8.0x |
| Total Debt | $2.21B | $2.63B | $22.96B | $4.05B | $20.18B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $1.83B | $145M | $19.71B | $956M | $22.03B |
AIZ vs GL vs PRU vs CNO vs MET — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | May 20 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Assurant, Inc. (AIZ) | 100 | 227.8 | +127.8% |
| Globe Life Inc. (GL) | 100 | 197.9 | +97.9% |
| Prudential Financia… (PRU) | 100 | 163.1 | +63.1% |
| CNO Financial Group… (CNO) | 100 | 319.9 | +219.9% |
| MetLife, Inc. (MET) | 100 | 218.9 | +118.9% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: AIZ vs GL vs PRU vs CNO vs MET
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
AIZ is the clearest fit if your priority is growth exposure and long-term compounding.
- Rev growth 7.9%, EPS growth 20.3%, 3Y rev CAGR 7.9%
- 202.1% 10Y total return vs CNO's 171.6%
- PEG 0.54 vs CNO's 4.80
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
- Combined ratio 0.8 vs MET's 0.9 (lower = better underwriting)
PRU is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if value is your priority.
- Lower P/E (7.3x vs 10.5x)
Among these 5 stocks, CNO doesn't own a clear edge in any measured category.
MET ranks third and is worth considering specifically for growth.
- 10.2% revenue growth vs PRU's -14.0%
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 10.5x) | |
| Quality / Margins | Combined ratio 0.8 vs MET's 0.9 (lower = better underwriting) | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.48 vs MET's 1.09, lower leverage | |
| Dividends | 0.7% yield, 23-year raise streak, vs PRU's 5.5% | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +27.0% vs PRU's +3.6% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 3.8% ROA vs MET's 0.5%, ROIC 13.4% vs 13.1% |
AIZ vs GL vs PRU vs CNO vs MET — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
AIZ vs GL vs PRU vs CNO vs MET — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 5 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
AIZ leads in 2 of 6 categories
PRU leads 1 • CNO leads 1 • GL leads 0 • MET leads 0 • 2 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
AIZ 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. GL is the more profitable business, keeping 19.4% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to MET's 4.7%. On growth, AIZ holds the edge at +11.3% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $13.2B | $6.0B | $61.8B | $4.5B | $76.9B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $1.4B | $1.6B | $5.4B | $573M | $5.9B |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | $1.0B | $1.2B | $3.5B | $222M | $3.6B |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | $1.5B | $1.3B | $9.8B | $676M | $16.5B |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +77.8% | +33.4% | +30.8% | +40.2% | +28.4% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | +9.4% | +24.4% | +8.2% | +6.3% | +6.3% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | +7.6% | +19.4% | +5.6% | +4.9% | +4.7% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | +11.4% | +20.9% | +15.8% | +15.1% | +21.5% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +11.3% | +3.9% | +6.3% | +4.2% | +4.4% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +92.9% | +9.3% | -12.8% | -39.2% | +35.9% |
Valuation Metrics
PRU leads this category, winning 5 of 7 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 9.7x trailing earnings, PRU trades at a 50% valuation discount to CNO's 19.5x P/E. Adjusting for growth (PEG ratio), AIZ offers better value at 0.64x vs CNO's 8.97x — a lower PEG means you pay less per unit of expected earnings growth.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $11.6B | $12.0B | $34.6B | $4.3B | $51.4B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $12.0B | $14.4B | $37.8B | $7.4B | $49.5B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | 13.44x | 10.84x | 9.73x | 19.53x | 16.42x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | 11.42x | 9.81x | 7.35x | 10.45x | 8.05x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | 0.64x | 0.70x | — | 8.97x | — |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 8.98x | 9.07x | 7.70x | 14.11x | 8.66x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 0.91x | 1.99x | 0.57x | 0.96x | 0.67x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 2.00x | 2.06x | 0.98x | 1.70x | 1.81x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | 7.28x | 9.54x | 5.51x | 6.37x | 2.84x |
Profitability & Efficiency
AIZ 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 $9 for CNO. AIZ carries lower financial leverage with a 0.38x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to CNO's 1.54x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), GL scores 8/9 vs CNO's 6/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | +17.4% | +20.6% | +10.3% | +8.6% | +12.7% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | +2.8% | +3.8% | +0.6% | +0.6% | +0.5% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | +14.0% | +13.4% | +10.0% | +4.0% | +13.1% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | +9.3% | +5.2% | +0.9% | +1.5% | +1.0% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 7 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 8 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.38x | 0.44x | 0.65x | 1.54x | 0.70x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $373M | $2.5B | $3.2B | $3.1B | -$1.8B |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $1.8B | $145M | $19.7B | $956M | $22.0B |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $2.2B | $2.6B | $23.0B | $4.1B | $20.2B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | 11.89x | 11.27x | 4.76x | 2.23x | 5.51x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
CNO leads this category, winning 3 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in CNO five years ago would be worth $18,192 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $11,768 for PRU. Over the past 12 months, GL leads with a +27.0% total return vs PRU's +3.6%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors CNO at 30.2% vs PRU's 11.7% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | -1.3% | +10.6% | -11.5% | +9.2% | -1.2% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | +20.3% | +27.0% | +3.6% | +23.5% | +4.9% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +84.5% | +43.6% | +39.5% | +120.6% | +58.9% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +54.6% | +48.3% | +17.7% | +81.9% | +32.9% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +202.1% | +175.7% | +89.0% | +171.6% | +153.9% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | +22.7% | +12.8% | +11.7% | +30.2% | +16.7% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — GL and CNO each lead in 1 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 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 PRU's 83.0% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 0.53x | 0.48x | 0.97x | 0.80x | 1.09x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $246.31 | $156.69 | $119.76 | $46.33 | $83.64 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $183.39 | $116.73 | $91.89 | $35.24 | $67.33 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +94.9% | +97.3% | +83.0% | +99.1% | +94.2% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 62.3 | 67.2 | 58.1 | 73.0 | 67.1 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 351K | 450K | 2.3M | 561K | 3.5M |
Analyst Outlook
Evenly matched — GL and PRU each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: AIZ as "Buy", GL as "Hold", PRU as "Hold", CNO as "Hold", MET as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 22.4% upside for MET (target: $97) vs 1.7% for CNO (target: $47). For income investors, PRU offers the higher dividend yield at 5.54% vs GL's 0.70%.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Buy | Hold | Hold | Hold | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $252.67 | $171.25 | $104.13 | $46.67 | $96.50 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 19 | 28 | 37 | 17 | 33 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | +1.4% | +0.7% | +5.5% | +1.5% | +2.9% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 21 | 23 | 8 | 13 | 13 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | $3.35 | $1.06 | $5.50 | $0.68 | $2.27 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | +2.6% | +7.4% | +2.9% | +7.7% | +7.6% |
AIZ leads in 2 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow, Profitability & Efficiency). PRU leads in 1 (Valuation Metrics). 2 tied.
AIZ vs GL vs PRU vs CNO vs MET: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is AIZ or GL or PRU or CNO or MET 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 Assurant, Inc. (AIZ) a "Buy" — based on 19 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 — AIZ or GL or PRU or CNO or MET?
On trailing P/E, Prudential Financial, Inc.
(PRU) is the cheapest at 9. 7x versus CNO Financial Group, Inc. at 19. 5x. 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: Assurant, Inc. wins at 0. 54x versus CNO Financial Group, Inc. 's 4. 80x — a PEG below 1. 0 traditionally signals the market is underpricing earnings growth.
03Which is the better long-term investment — AIZ or GL or PRU or CNO or MET?
Over the past 5 years, CNO Financial Group, Inc.
(CNO) delivered a total return of +81. 9%, compared to +17. 7% for Prudential Financial, Inc. (PRU). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: AIZ returned +202. 1% 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 — AIZ or GL or PRU or CNO or MET?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Globe Life Inc.
(GL) is the lower-risk stock at 0. 48β versus MetLife, Inc. 's 1. 09β — meaning MET is approximately 127% more volatile than GL relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Assurant, Inc. (AIZ) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 38% versus 154% for CNO Financial Group, Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — AIZ or GL or PRU or CNO or MET?
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 -37. 2% for CNO Financial Group, Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, AIZ 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 — AIZ or GL or PRU or CNO or MET?
Globe Life Inc.
(GL) is the more profitable company, earning 19. 4% net margin versus 4. 4% for MetLife, 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 6. 0% for MET. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — AIZ leads at 77. 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 AIZ or GL or PRU or CNO or MET 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, Assurant, Inc. (AIZ) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 0. 54x versus CNO Financial Group, Inc. 's 4. 80x. A PEG below 1. 0 is traditionally considered the threshold for growth-adjusted undervaluation. On forward earnings alone, Prudential Financial, Inc. (PRU) trades at 7. 3x forward P/E versus 11. 4x for Assurant, Inc. — 4. 1x 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 — AIZ or GL or PRU or CNO or MET?
All stocks in this comparison pay dividends.
Prudential Financial, Inc. (PRU) offers the highest yield at 5. 5%, versus 0. 7% for Globe Life Inc. (GL).
09Is AIZ or GL or PRU or CNO or MET 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%, 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 AIZ and GL and PRU and CNO and MET?
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: AIZ is a mid-cap deep-value stock; GL is a mid-cap deep-value stock; PRU is a mid-cap deep-value stock; CNO is a small-cap quality compounder stock; MET 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.