Insurance - Specialty
Compare Stocks
5 / 10Stock Comparison
AMBC vs MBI vs AGO vs BAM vs RDN
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Insurance - Specialty
Insurance - Specialty
Asset Management
Insurance - Specialty
AMBC vs MBI vs AGO vs BAM vs RDN — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Insurance - Specialty | Insurance - Specialty | Insurance - Specialty | Asset Management | Insurance - Specialty |
| Market Cap | $269M | $325M | $3.70B | $81.87B | $5.13B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $99M | $90M | $1.01B | $3.98B | $1.25B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $-780M | $-155M | $503M | $2.60B | $583M |
| Gross Margin | -17.0% | 16.7% | 92.9% | 71.0% | 92.3% |
| Operating Margin | -132.2% | -177.8% | 65.2% | 69.4% | 61.2% |
| Forward P/E | 92.0x | — | 12.4x | 26.4x | 7.6x |
| Total Debt | $150M | $2.84B | $1.70B | $219M | $1.13B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $47M | $69M | $388M | $12M | $25M |
AMBC vs MBI vs AGO vs BAM vs RDN — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | Dec 22 | Jan 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ambac Financial Gro… (AMBC) | 100 | 35.1 | -64.9% |
| MBIA Inc. (MBI) | 100 | 55.7 | -44.3% |
| Assured Guaranty Lt… (AGO) | 100 | 144.3 | +44.3% |
| Brookfield Asset Ma… (BAM) | 100 | 182.7 | +82.7% |
| Radian Group Inc. (RDN) | 100 | 188.7 | +88.7% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: AMBC vs MBI vs AGO vs BAM vs RDN
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
AMBC lags the leaders in this set but could rank higher in a more targeted comparison.
MBI is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if growth exposure is your priority.
- Rev growth 90.5%, EPS growth 61.9%, 3Y rev CAGR -19.6%
- 90.5% revenue growth vs RDN's -3.4%
- +37.7% vs AMBC's -24.3%
Among these 5 stocks, AGO doesn't own a clear edge in any measured category.
BAM ranks third and is worth considering specifically for quality and efficiency.
- 54.5% margin vs AMBC's -7.9%
- 15.8% ROA vs AMBC's -36.3%, ROIC 71.0% vs -1.5%
RDN carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for income & stability and long-term compounding.
- Dividend streak 11 yrs, beta 0.37, yield 2.8%
- 250.2% 10Y total return vs AGO's 249.3%
- Lower volatility, beta 0.37, Low D/E 23.7%, current ratio 4.28x
- PEG 0.49 vs AGO's 1.09
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 90.5% revenue growth vs RDN's -3.4% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (7.6x vs 26.4x) | |
| Quality / Margins | 54.5% margin vs AMBC's -7.9% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.37 vs BAM's 1.50 | |
| Dividends | 2.8% yield, 11-year raise streak, vs AGO's 1.7%, (2 stocks pay no dividend) | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +37.7% vs AMBC's -24.3% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 15.8% ROA vs AMBC's -36.3%, ROIC 71.0% vs -1.5% |
AMBC vs MBI vs AGO vs BAM vs RDN — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
Segment breakdown not available.
AMBC vs MBI vs AGO vs BAM vs RDN — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 5 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
BAM leads in 1 of 6 categories
MBI leads 1 • RDN leads 1 • AMBC leads 0 • AGO leads 0 • 3 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
Evenly matched — MBI and AGO and BAM each lead in 2 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
BAM is the larger business by revenue, generating $4.0B annually — 44.2x MBI's $90M. BAM is the more profitable business, keeping 54.5% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to AMBC's -7.9%. On growth, MBI holds the edge at +71.4% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $99M | $90M | $1.0B | $4.0B | $1.2B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | -$117M | -$13M | $751M | $3.0B | $807M |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | -$780M | -$155M | $503M | $2.6B | $583M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | -$35M | $48M | $259M | $1.9B | $116M |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | -17.0% | +16.7% | +92.9% | +71.0% | +92.3% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | -132.2% | -177.8% | +65.2% | +69.4% | +61.2% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | -7.9% | -172.2% | +49.6% | +54.5% | +46.7% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | -35.3% | +53.3% | +25.5% | +15.8% | +9.3% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -4.9% | +71.4% | +40.1% | — | -5.0% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -3.0% | +38.3% | +5.9% | +44.8% | +17.3% |
Valuation Metrics
Evenly matched — AMBC and MBI and AGO each lead in 2 of 7 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 4.3x trailing earnings, AMBC trades at a 89% valuation discount to BAM's 38.1x P/E. Adjusting for growth (PEG ratio), AGO offers better value at 0.42x vs RDN's 0.58x — a lower PEG means you pay less per unit of expected earnings growth.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $269M | $325M | $3.7B | $81.9B | $5.1B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $371M | $3.1B | $5.0B | $82.1B | $6.2B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | 4.32x | -1.78x | 8.11x | 38.11x | 9.09x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | 92.04x | — | 12.44x | 26.39x | 7.63x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | — | 0.42x | — | 0.58x |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | — | 193.72x | 6.68x | 29.57x | 7.73x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 1.14x | 4.07x | 4.70x | 20.57x | 4.11x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 0.24x | — | 0.70x | 24.98x | 1.09x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | 352.45x | 8.56x | 14.29x | 130.58x | 15.23x |
Profitability & Efficiency
BAM leads this category, winning 5 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
BAM delivers a 24.4% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $24 in annual profit, vs $-68 for AMBC. BAM carries lower financial leverage with a 0.07x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to AGO's 0.29x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), MBI scores 7/9 vs BAM's 4/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | -68.0% | — | +8.8% | +24.4% | +12.6% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | -36.3% | -7.6% | +4.2% | +15.8% | +6.7% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | -1.5% | -16.9% | +7.0% | +71.0% | +8.9% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | -0.7% | -9.4% | +5.5% | +103.0% | +10.2% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 6 | 7 | 5 | 4 | 5 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.13x | — | 0.29x | 0.07x | 0.24x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $103M | $2.8B | $1.3B | $207M | $1.1B |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $47M | $69M | $388M | $12M | $25M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $150M | $2.8B | $1.7B | $219M | $1.1B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | -6.80x | 0.11x | 8.44x | 9.00x | 12.64x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
MBI leads this category, winning 4 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in MBI five years ago would be worth $22,525 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $3,543 for AMBC. Over the past 12 months, MBI leads with a +37.7% total return vs AMBC's -24.3%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors MBI at 33.3% vs AMBC's -26.0% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | -17.9% | -7.7% | -6.6% | -7.8% | +5.4% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | -24.3% | +37.7% | -4.3% | -9.3% | +14.3% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -59.4% | +136.7% | +63.5% | +62.4% | +63.2% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -64.6% | +125.3% | +81.6% | +68.2% | +77.9% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -60.6% | +197.3% | +249.3% | +68.2% | +250.2% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | -26.0% | +33.3% | +17.8% | +17.5% | +17.7% |
Risk & Volatility
RDN leads this category, winning 2 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
RDN is the less volatile stock with a 0.37 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than BAM's 1.50 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. RDN currently trades 96.9% from its 52-week high vs AMBC's 59.1% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 0.78x | 0.81x | 0.45x | 1.50x | 0.37x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $10.38 | $8.26 | $92.40 | $64.10 | $38.84 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $5.96 | $4.11 | $78.77 | $42.20 | $31.50 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +59.1% | +77.4% | +89.3% | +76.1% | +96.9% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 21.3 | 54.9 | 46.7 | 59.6 | 57.0 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 638K | 309K | 309K | 3.6M | 1.2M |
Analyst Outlook
Evenly matched — AGO and RDN each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: AMBC as "Buy", MBI as "Buy", AGO as "Buy", BAM as "Buy", RDN as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 128.4% upside for AMBC (target: $14) vs 6.3% for RDN (target: $40). For income investors, RDN offers the higher dividend yield at 2.80% vs BAM's 0.77%.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Buy | Buy | Buy | Buy | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $14.00 | $14.00 | $94.00 | $61.83 | $40.00 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 6 | 6 | 9 | 20 | 22 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | — | — | +1.7% | +0.8% | +2.8% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 0 | 1 | 16 | 1 | 11 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | — | — | $1.38 | $0.38 | $1.06 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | +4.4% | +2.2% | +13.5% | +0.0% | +8.4% |
BAM leads in 1 of 6 categories (Profitability & Efficiency). MBI leads in 1 (Total Returns). 3 tied.
AMBC vs MBI vs AGO vs BAM vs RDN: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is AMBC or MBI or AGO or BAM or RDN a better buy right now?
For growth investors, MBIA Inc.
(MBI) is the stronger pick with 90. 5% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -3. 4% for Radian Group Inc. (RDN). Ambac Financial Group, Inc. (AMBC) offers the better valuation at 4. 3x trailing P/E (92. 0x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Ambac Financial Group, Inc. (AMBC) a "Buy" — based on 6 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 — AMBC or MBI or AGO or BAM or RDN?
On trailing P/E, Ambac Financial Group, Inc.
(AMBC) is the cheapest at 4. 3x versus Brookfield Asset Management Ltd. at 38. 1x. On forward P/E, Radian Group Inc. is actually cheaper at 7. 6x — 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: Radian Group Inc. wins at 0. 49x versus Assured Guaranty Ltd. 's 1. 09x — a PEG below 1. 0 traditionally signals the market is underpricing earnings growth.
03Which is the better long-term investment — AMBC or MBI or AGO or BAM or RDN?
Over the past 5 years, MBIA Inc.
(MBI) delivered a total return of +125. 3%, compared to -64. 6% for Ambac Financial Group, Inc. (AMBC). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: RDN returned +250. 2% versus AMBC's -60. 6%. 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 — AMBC or MBI or AGO or BAM or RDN?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Radian Group Inc.
(RDN) is the lower-risk stock at 0. 37β versus Brookfield Asset Management Ltd. 's 1. 50β — meaning BAM is approximately 301% more volatile than RDN relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Brookfield Asset Management Ltd. (BAM) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 7% versus 29% for Assured Guaranty Ltd. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — AMBC or MBI or AGO or BAM or RDN?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), MBIA Inc.
(MBI) is pulling ahead at 90. 5% versus -3. 4% for Radian Group Inc. (RDN). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: MBIA Inc. grew EPS 61. 9% year-over-year, compared to -60. 5% for Ambac Financial Group, Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, AGO leads at 4. 8% 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 — AMBC or MBI or AGO or BAM or RDN?
Assured Guaranty Ltd.
(AGO) is the more profitable company, earning 63. 8% net margin versus -236. 0% for Ambac Financial Group, Inc. — meaning it keeps 63. 8% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: AGO leads at 84. 0% versus -226. 3% for MBI. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — AGO leads at 92. 9%, 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 AMBC or MBI or AGO or BAM or RDN 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, Radian Group Inc. (RDN) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 0. 49x versus Assured Guaranty Ltd. 's 1. 09x. A PEG below 1. 0 is traditionally considered the threshold for growth-adjusted undervaluation. On forward earnings alone, Radian Group Inc. (RDN) trades at 7. 6x forward P/E versus 92. 0x for Ambac Financial Group, Inc. — 84. 4x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for AMBC: 128. 4% to $14. 00.
08Which pays a better dividend — AMBC or MBI or AGO or BAM or RDN?
In this comparison, RDN (2.
8% yield), AGO (1. 7% yield), BAM (0. 8% yield) pay a dividend. AMBC, MBI do not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
09Is AMBC or MBI or AGO or BAM or RDN better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, Radian Group Inc.
(RDN) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0. 37), 2. 8% yield, +250. 2% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (RDN: +250. 2%, BAM: +68. 2%), 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 AMBC and MBI and AGO and BAM and RDN?
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: AMBC is a small-cap high-growth stock; MBI is a small-cap high-growth stock; AGO is a small-cap deep-value stock; BAM is a mid-cap quality compounder stock; RDN is a small-cap deep-value stock. AGO, BAM, RDN pay a dividend while AMBC, MBI do not, making them suitable for different income and tax situations. 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.