Asset Management
Compare Stocks
5 / 10Stock Comparison
AMP vs MET vs PRU vs LNC vs PFG
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Insurance - Life
Insurance - Life
Insurance - Life
Insurance - Diversified
AMP vs MET vs PRU vs LNC vs PFG — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Asset Management | Insurance - Life | Insurance - Life | Insurance - Life | Insurance - Diversified |
| Market Cap | $44.19B | $51.39B | $34.58B | $6.87B | $21.67B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $18.91B | $76.94B | $61.82B | $18.88B | $15.63B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $3.56B | $3.62B | $3.48B | $1.73B | $1.19B |
| Gross Margin | 50.4% | 28.4% | 30.8% | 17.0% | 45.2% |
| Operating Margin | 25.5% | 6.3% | 8.2% | 12.1% | 9.1% |
| Forward P/E | 10.4x | 8.0x | 7.3x | 4.7x | 10.7x |
| Total Debt | $5.86B | $20.18B | $22.96B | $6.43B | $4.20B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $10.10B | $22.03B | $19.71B | $9.50B | $4.43B |
AMP vs MET vs PRU vs LNC vs PFG — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | May 20 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ameriprise Financia… (AMP) | 100 | 327.6 | +227.6% |
| MetLife, Inc. (MET) | 100 | 218.9 | +118.9% |
| Prudential Financia… (PRU) | 100 | 163.1 | +63.1% |
| Lincoln National Co… (LNC) | 100 | 94.8 | -5.2% |
| Principal Financial… (PFG) | 100 | 259.0 | +159.0% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: AMP vs MET vs PRU vs LNC vs PFG
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
AMP carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for income & stability and long-term compounding.
- Dividend streak 15 yrs, beta 1.12, yield 6.8%
- 443.4% 10Y total return vs PFG's 195.8%
- Beta 1.12, yield 6.8%, current ratio 7.87x
- 18.8% margin vs MET's 4.7%
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 ranks third and is worth considering specifically for stability.
- Beta 0.97 vs LNC's 1.34
LNC is the clearest fit if your priority is valuation efficiency.
- PEG 0.14 vs PFG's 13.78
- Lower P/E (4.7x vs 10.7x), PEG 0.14 vs 13.78
PFG is the clearest fit if your priority is sleep-well-at-night.
- Lower volatility, beta 1.00, Low D/E 33.9%, current ratio 2.35x
- +33.0% vs AMP's -3.2%
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 10.2% revenue growth vs PRU's -14.0% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (4.7x vs 10.7x), PEG 0.14 vs 13.78 | |
| Quality / Margins | 18.8% margin vs MET's 4.7% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.97 vs LNC's 1.34 | |
| Dividends | 6.8% yield, 15-year raise streak, vs PFG's 3.0% | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +33.0% vs AMP's -3.2% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 1.9% ROA vs PFG's 0.4%, ROIC 31.3% vs 9.0% |
AMP vs MET vs PRU vs LNC vs PFG — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
AMP vs MET vs PRU vs LNC vs PFG — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 5 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
AMP leads in 2 of 6 categories
LNC leads 1 • MET leads 0 • PRU leads 0 • PFG leads 0 • 3 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
AMP 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 — 4.9x PFG's $15.6B. AMP is the more profitable business, keeping 18.8% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to MET's 4.7%. On growth, LNC holds the edge at +12.5% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $18.9B | $76.9B | $61.8B | $18.9B | $15.6B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $4.8B | $5.9B | $5.4B | $2.4B | $1.4B |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | $3.6B | $3.6B | $3.5B | $1.7B | $1.2B |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | $2.9B | $16.5B | $9.8B | $243M | $4.4B |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +50.4% | +28.4% | +30.8% | +17.0% | +45.2% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | +25.5% | +6.3% | +8.2% | +12.1% | +9.1% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | +18.8% | +4.7% | +5.6% | +9.1% | +7.6% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | +15.3% | +21.5% | +15.8% | +1.3% | +28.4% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | — | +4.4% | +6.3% | +12.5% | -3.7% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -1.0% | +35.9% | -12.8% | +100.0% | -40.8% |
Valuation Metrics
LNC leads this category, winning 6 of 7 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 6.2x trailing earnings, LNC trades at a 68% valuation discount to PFG's 19.1x P/E. Adjusting for growth (PEG ratio), LNC offers better value at 0.34x vs PFG's 13.78x — a lower PEG means you pay less per unit of expected earnings growth.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $44.2B | $51.4B | $34.6B | $6.9B | $21.7B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $39.9B | $49.5B | $37.8B | $3.8B | $21.4B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | 12.62x | 16.42x | 9.73x | 6.15x | 19.05x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | 10.45x | 8.05x | 7.35x | 4.67x | 10.75x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | 0.52x | — | — | 0.34x | 13.78x |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 7.92x | 8.66x | 7.70x | 2.43x | 12.86x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 2.34x | 0.67x | 0.57x | 0.38x | 1.39x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 6.75x | 1.81x | 0.98x | 0.61x | 1.82x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | 15.27x | 2.84x | 5.51x | — | 4.88x |
Profitability & Efficiency
AMP leads this category, winning 5 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
AMP delivers a 58.1% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $58 in annual profit, vs $10 for PFG. PFG carries lower financial leverage with a 0.34x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to AMP's 0.90x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), MET scores 8/9 vs LNC's 3/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | +58.1% | +12.7% | +10.3% | +16.8% | +9.9% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | +1.9% | +0.5% | +0.6% | +0.4% | +0.4% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | +31.3% | +13.1% | +10.0% | +12.0% | +9.0% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | +2.6% | +1.0% | +0.9% | +0.4% | +0.4% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 4 | 8 | 7 | 3 | 6 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.90x | 0.70x | 0.65x | 0.59x | 0.34x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | -$4.2B | -$1.8B | $3.2B | -$3.1B | -$227M |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $10.1B | $22.0B | $19.7B | $9.5B | $4.4B |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $5.9B | $20.2B | $23.0B | $6.4B | $4.2B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | 14.82x | 5.51x | 4.76x | 15.29x | 644.64x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
Evenly matched — AMP and LNC and PFG each lead in 2 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in AMP five years ago would be worth $18,362 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $6,476 for LNC. Over the past 12 months, PFG leads with a +33.0% total return vs AMP's -3.2%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors LNC at 24.9% vs PRU's 11.7% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | -6.4% | -1.2% | -11.5% | -18.2% | +12.8% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | -3.2% | +4.9% | +3.6% | +11.0% | +33.0% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +62.4% | +58.9% | +39.5% | +95.0% | +52.3% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +83.6% | +32.9% | +17.7% | -35.2% | +70.7% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +443.4% | +153.9% | +89.0% | +24.5% | +195.8% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | +17.5% | +16.7% | +11.7% | +24.9% | +15.0% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — PRU and PFG each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
PRU is the less volatile stock with a 0.97 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than LNC's 1.34 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. PFG currently trades 97.1% from its 52-week high vs LNC's 76.8% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 1.12x | 1.09x | 0.97x | 1.34x | 1.00x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $550.18 | $83.64 | $119.76 | $46.82 | $103.00 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $422.37 | $67.33 | $91.89 | $31.61 | $75.00 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +83.4% | +94.2% | +83.0% | +76.8% | +97.1% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 59.0 | 67.1 | 58.1 | 58.2 | 69.4 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 621K | 3.5M | 2.3M | 2.1M | 1.5M |
Analyst Outlook
Evenly matched — AMP and PFG each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: AMP as "Buy", MET as "Buy", PRU as "Hold", LNC as "Hold", PFG as "Hold". Consensus price targets imply 22.4% upside for MET (target: $97) vs -5.5% for PFG (target: $95). For income investors, AMP offers the higher dividend yield at 6.85% vs MET's 2.88%.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Buy | Buy | Hold | Hold | Hold |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $525.80 | $96.50 | $104.13 | $43.50 | $94.50 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 22 | 33 | 37 | 28 | 25 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | +6.8% | +2.9% | +5.5% | +4.9% | +3.0% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 15 | 13 | 8 | 0 | 17 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | $31.41 | $2.27 | $5.50 | $1.75 | $3.03 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | +4.8% | +7.6% | +2.9% | 0.0% | +4.2% |
AMP leads in 2 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow, Profitability & Efficiency). LNC leads in 1 (Valuation Metrics). 3 tied.
AMP vs MET vs PRU vs LNC vs PFG: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is AMP or MET or PRU or LNC or PFG 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). Lincoln National Corporation (LNC) offers the better valuation at 6. 2x trailing P/E (4. 7x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Ameriprise Financial, Inc. (AMP) a "Buy" — based on 22 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 — AMP or MET or PRU or LNC or PFG?
On trailing P/E, Lincoln National Corporation (LNC) is the cheapest at 6.
2x versus Principal Financial Group, Inc. at 19. 1x. On forward P/E, Lincoln National Corporation is actually cheaper at 4. 7x. The PEG ratio (P/E divided by earnings growth rate) is the most growth-adjusted single valuation metric: Lincoln National Corporation wins at 0. 14x versus Principal Financial Group, Inc. 's 13. 78x — a PEG below 1. 0 traditionally signals the market is underpricing earnings growth.
03Which is the better long-term investment — AMP or MET or PRU or LNC or PFG?
Over the past 5 years, Ameriprise Financial, Inc.
(AMP) delivered a total return of +83. 6%, compared to -35. 2% for Lincoln National Corporation (LNC). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: AMP returned +443. 4% versus LNC's +24. 5%. 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 — AMP or MET or PRU or LNC or PFG?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Prudential Financial, Inc.
(PRU) is the lower-risk stock at 0. 97β versus Lincoln National Corporation's 1. 34β — meaning LNC is approximately 37% more volatile than PRU relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Principal Financial Group, Inc. (PFG) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 34% versus 90% for Ameriprise Financial, Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — AMP or MET or PRU or LNC or PFG?
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 -68. 3% for Lincoln National Corporation. 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 — AMP or MET or PRU or LNC or PFG?
Ameriprise Financial, Inc.
(AMP) is the more profitable company, earning 18. 8% net margin versus 4. 4% for MetLife, Inc. — meaning it keeps 18. 8% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: AMP leads at 25. 5% versus 6. 0% for MET. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — LNC leads at 57. 3%, 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 AMP or MET or PRU or LNC or PFG 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, Lincoln National Corporation (LNC) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 0. 14x versus Principal Financial Group, Inc. 's 13. 78x. A PEG below 1. 0 is traditionally considered the threshold for growth-adjusted undervaluation. On forward earnings alone, Lincoln National Corporation (LNC) trades at 4. 7x forward P/E versus 10. 7x for Principal Financial Group, Inc. — 6. 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 — AMP or MET or PRU or LNC or PFG?
All stocks in this comparison pay dividends.
Ameriprise Financial, Inc. (AMP) offers the highest yield at 6. 8%, versus 2. 9% for MetLife, Inc. (MET).
09Is AMP or MET or PRU or LNC or PFG better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, Ameriprise Financial, Inc.
(AMP) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 1. 12), 6. 8% yield, +443. 4% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (AMP: +443. 4%, LNC: +24. 5%), 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 AMP and MET and PRU and LNC and PFG?
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: AMP is a mid-cap deep-value stock; MET is a mid-cap deep-value stock; PRU is a mid-cap deep-value stock; LNC is a small-cap deep-value stock; PFG is a mid-cap income-oriented 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.