Insurance - Diversified
Compare Stocks
5 / 10Stock Comparison
AIZN vs UNM vs MET vs PRU vs AFL
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Insurance - Life
Insurance - Life
Insurance - Life
Insurance - Life
AIZN vs UNM vs MET vs PRU vs AFL — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Insurance - Diversified | Insurance - Life | Insurance - Life | Insurance - Life | Insurance - Life |
| Market Cap | $977M | $12.97B | $51.39B | $34.58B | $58.52B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $13.16B | $13.30B | $76.94B | $61.82B | $17.36B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $1.00B | $781M | $3.62B | $3.48B | $3.65B |
| Gross Margin | 77.8% | 33.9% | 28.4% | 30.8% | 38.7% |
| Operating Margin | 9.4% | 7.5% | 6.3% | 8.2% | 26.3% |
| Forward P/E | 1.0x | 9.2x | 8.0x | 7.3x | 15.8x |
| Total Debt | $2.21B | $3.90B | $20.18B | $22.96B | $8.41B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $1.83B | $158M | $22.03B | $19.71B | $6.25B |
AIZN vs UNM vs MET vs PRU vs AFL — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | Nov 20 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Assurant, Inc. 5.25… (AIZN) | 100 | 72.1 | -27.9% |
| Unum Group (UNM) | 100 | 361.2 | +261.2% |
| MetLife, Inc. (MET) | 100 | 170.7 | +70.7% |
| Prudential Financia… (PRU) | 100 | 131.5 | +31.5% |
| Aflac Incorporated (AFL) | 100 | 258.6 | +158.6% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: AIZN vs UNM vs MET vs PRU vs AFL
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
AIZN is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if income & stability and growth exposure is your priority.
- Dividend streak 21 yrs, beta 0.81, yield 17.1%
- Rev growth 7.9%, EPS growth 20.3%, 3Y rev CAGR 7.9%
- PEG 0.05 vs AFL's 33.17
- Beta 0.81, yield 17.1%, current ratio 0.55x
UNM lags the leaders in this set but could rank higher in a more targeted comparison.
MET ranks third and is worth considering specifically for growth.
- 10.2% revenue growth vs PRU's -14.0%
Among these 5 stocks, PRU doesn't own a clear edge in any measured category.
AFL carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for long-term compounding and sleep-well-at-night.
- 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)
- Beta 0.19 vs MET's 1.09, lower leverage
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 10.2% revenue growth vs PRU's -14.0% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (1.0x vs 15.8x), PEG 0.05 vs 33.17 | |
| 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 | 17.1% yield, 21-year raise streak, vs AFL's 2.0% | |
| 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% |
AIZN vs UNM vs MET vs PRU vs AFL — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
AIZN vs UNM vs MET vs PRU vs AFL — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 5 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
AIZN leads in 3 of 6 categories
UNM leads 1 • MET leads 0 • PRU leads 0 • AFL leads 0 • 2 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
AIZN 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 AIZN's $13.2B. AFL is the more profitable business, keeping 21.0% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to MET's 4.7%. On growth, AIZN holds the edge at +11.3% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $13.2B | $13.3B | $76.9B | $61.8B | $17.4B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $1.4B | $1.1B | $5.9B | $5.4B | $5.5B |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | $1.0B | $781M | $3.6B | $3.5B | $3.6B |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | $1.5B | $539M | $16.5B | $9.8B | $2.6B |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +77.8% | +33.9% | +28.4% | +30.8% | +38.7% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | +9.4% | +7.5% | +6.3% | +8.2% | +26.3% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | +7.6% | +5.9% | +4.7% | +5.6% | +21.0% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | +11.4% | +4.1% | +21.5% | +15.8% | +14.7% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +11.3% | +9.0% | +4.4% | +6.3% | -10.9% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +92.9% | +33.0% | +35.9% | -12.8% | -24.3% |
Valuation Metrics
AIZN leads this category, winning 7 of 7 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 1.1x trailing earnings, AIZN trades at a 94% valuation discount to UNM's 18.8x P/E. Adjusting for growth (PEG ratio), AIZN offers better value at 0.05x vs AFL's 33.17x — a lower PEG means you pay less per unit of expected earnings growth.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $977M | $13.0B | $51.4B | $34.6B | $58.5B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $1.3B | $16.7B | $49.5B | $37.8B | $60.7B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | 1.13x | 18.76x | 16.42x | 9.73x | 16.63x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | 0.95x | 9.18x | 8.05x | 7.35x | 15.76x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | 0.05x | 9.73x | — | — | 33.17x |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 1.01x | 15.82x | 8.66x | 7.70x | 11.00x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 0.08x | 0.99x | 0.67x | 0.57x | 3.36x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 0.17x | 1.25x | 1.81x | 0.98x | 2.05x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | 0.61x | 23.35x | 2.84x | 5.51x | 22.90x |
Profitability & Efficiency
AIZN leads this category, winning 4 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
AIZN delivers a 17.4% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $17 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 | +17.4% | +7.1% | +12.7% | +10.3% | +13.1% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | +2.8% | +1.6% | +0.5% | +0.6% | +3.0% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | +14.0% | +4.7% | +13.1% | +10.0% | +11.8% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | +9.3% | +1.5% | +1.0% | +0.9% | +4.0% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 7 | 5 | 8 | 7 | 4 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.38x | 0.35x | 0.70x | 0.65x | 0.29x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $373M | $3.7B | -$1.8B | $3.2B | $2.2B |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $1.8B | $158M | $22.0B | $19.7B | $6.2B |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $2.2B | $3.9B | $20.2B | $23.0B | $8.4B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | 11.89x | 5.48x | 5.51x | 4.76x | 21.00x |
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 $9,903 for AIZN. 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 AIZN's 6.6% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | +1.8% | +5.2% | -1.2% | -11.5% | +3.6% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | +6.7% | +2.0% | +4.9% | +3.6% | +8.4% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +21.1% | +90.5% | +58.9% | +39.5% | +77.1% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -1.0% | +193.8% | +32.9% | +17.7% | +118.8% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -0.7% | +177.2% | +153.9% | +89.0% | +272.5% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | +6.6% | +24.0% | +16.7% | +11.7% | +21.0% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — UNM and AFL 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 | 0.81x | 0.48x | 1.09x | 0.97x | 0.19x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $22.00 | $83.13 | $83.64 | $119.76 | $119.32 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $6.32 | $68.28 | $67.33 | $91.89 | $96.95 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +89.3% | +96.6% | +94.2% | +83.0% | +95.2% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 55.7 | 61.0 | 67.1 | 58.1 | 51.0 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 16K | 1.5M | 3.5M | 2.3M | 2.1M |
Analyst Outlook
Evenly matched — AIZN and AFL each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: UNM as "Hold", MET as "Buy", PRU as "Hold", AFL as "Hold". Consensus price targets imply 22.4% upside for MET (target: $97) vs -2.4% for AFL (target: $111). For income investors, AIZN offers the higher dividend yield at 17.07% vs AFL's 1.98%.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | — | Hold | Buy | Hold | Hold |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | — | $98.00 | $96.50 | $104.13 | $110.83 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | — | 30 | 33 | 37 | 32 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | +17.1% | +2.2% | +2.9% | +5.5% | +2.0% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 21 | 20 | 13 | 8 | 37 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | $3.35 | $1.77 | $2.27 | $5.50 | $2.25 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | +31.1% | +7.8% | +7.6% | +2.9% | +6.0% |
AIZN leads in 3 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow, Valuation Metrics). UNM leads in 1 (Total Returns). 2 tied.
AIZN vs UNM vs MET vs PRU vs AFL: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is AIZN or UNM or MET or PRU or AFL 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). Assurant, Inc. 5. 25% Subordinat (AIZN) offers the better valuation at 1. 1x trailing P/E (1. 0x 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 — AIZN or UNM or MET or PRU or AFL?
On trailing P/E, Assurant, Inc.
5. 25% Subordinat (AIZN) is the cheapest at 1. 1x versus Unum Group at 18. 8x. On forward P/E, Assurant, Inc. 5. 25% Subordinat is actually cheaper at 1. 0x. The PEG ratio (P/E divided by earnings growth rate) is the most growth-adjusted single valuation metric: Assurant, Inc. 5. 25% Subordinat wins at 0. 05x 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 — AIZN or UNM or MET or PRU or AFL?
Over the past 5 years, Unum Group (UNM) delivered a total return of +193.
8%, compared to -1. 0% for Assurant, Inc. 5. 25% Subordinat (AIZN). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: AFL returned +272. 5% versus AIZN's -0. 7%. 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 — AIZN or UNM or MET or PRU or AFL?
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 — AIZN or UNM or MET or PRU or AFL?
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, AIZN 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 — AIZN or UNM or MET or PRU or AFL?
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 — AIZN 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 AIZN or UNM or MET or PRU or AFL 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. 5. 25% Subordinat (AIZN) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 0. 05x versus Aflac Incorporated's 33. 17x. A PEG below 1. 0 is traditionally considered the threshold for growth-adjusted undervaluation. On forward earnings alone, Assurant, Inc. 5. 25% Subordinat (AIZN) trades at 1. 0x forward P/E versus 15. 8x for Aflac Incorporated — 14. 8x 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 — AIZN or UNM or MET or PRU or AFL?
All stocks in this comparison pay dividends.
Assurant, Inc. 5. 25% Subordinat (AIZN) offers the highest yield at 17. 1%, versus 2. 0% for Aflac Incorporated (AFL).
09Is AIZN or UNM or MET or PRU or AFL 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 AIZN and UNM and MET and PRU and AFL?
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: AIZN is a small-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; AFL 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.