ALL vs CNA

For growth investors, CNA Financial Corporation (CNA) is the stronger pick with 5.

1% revenue growth year-over-year, versus 4. 6% for The Allstate Corporation (ALL). The Allstate Corporation (ALL) offers the better valuation at 5. 7x trailing P/E (8. 0x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate The Allstate Corporation (ALL) a "Buy" — based on 44 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.

On trailing P/E, The Allstate Corporation (ALL) is the cheapest at 5.

7x versus CNA Financial Corporation at 9. 3x. On forward P/E, The Allstate Corporation is actually cheaper at 8. 0x. The PEG ratio (P/E divided by earnings growth rate) is the most growth-adjusted single valuation metric: The Allstate Corporation wins at 0. 47x versus CNA Financial Corporation's 0. 69x — a PEG below 1. 0 traditionally signals the market is underpricing earnings growth.

Over the past 5 years, The Allstate Corporation (ALL) delivered a total return of +78.

0%, compared to +26. 8% for CNA Financial Corporation (CNA). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: ALL returned +265. 6% versus CNA's +135. 3%. Past returns do not guarantee future results, and the stock with the higher historical return may already have its best growth priced in.

By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), The Allstate Corporation (ALL) is the lower-risk stock at 0.

12β versus CNA Financial Corporation's 0. 24β — meaning CNA is approximately 108% more volatile than ALL relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, The Allstate Corporation (ALL) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 24% versus 26% for CNA Financial Corporation — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.

By revenue growth (latest reported year), CNA Financial Corporation (CNA) is pulling ahead at 5.

1% versus 4. 6% for The Allstate Corporation (ALL). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: The Allstate Corporation grew EPS 124. 8% year-over-year, compared to 33. 2% for CNA Financial Corporation. Over a 3-year CAGR, ALL leads at 9. 5% 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.

The Allstate Corporation (ALL) is the more profitable company, earning 15.

5% net margin versus 8. 7% for CNA Financial Corporation — meaning it keeps 15. 5% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: ALL leads at 19. 8% versus 11. 0% for CNA. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — ALL leads at 33. 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.

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, The Allstate Corporation (ALL) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 0. 47x versus CNA Financial Corporation's 0. 69x. A PEG below 1. 0 is traditionally considered the threshold for growth-adjusted undervaluation. On forward earnings alone, The Allstate Corporation (ALL) trades at 8. 0x forward P/E versus 9. 0x for CNA Financial Corporation — 1. 0x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for ALL: 12. 1% to $244. 38.

All stocks in this comparison pay dividends.

CNA Financial Corporation (CNA) offers the highest yield at 8. 9%, versus 1. 8% for The Allstate Corporation (ALL).

For long-horizon retirement investors, The Allstate Corporation (ALL) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0.

12), 1. 8% yield, +265. 6% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (ALL: +265. 6%, CNA: +135. 3%), 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.

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.

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.