AMSF vs HIG vs TRV vs WRB

For growth investors, W.

R. Berkley Corporation (WRB) is the stronger pick with 7. 8% revenue growth year-over-year, versus 2. 6% for AMERISAFE, Inc. (AMSF). The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc. (HIG) offers the better valuation at 10. 0x trailing P/E (10. 1x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate AMERISAFE, Inc. (AMSF) 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.

On trailing P/E, The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc.

(HIG) is the cheapest at 10. 0x versus W. R. Berkley Corporation at 14. 9x. On forward P/E, The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc. is actually cheaper at 10. 1x. The PEG ratio (P/E divided by earnings growth rate) is the most growth-adjusted single valuation metric: The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc. wins at 0. 44x versus The Travelers Companies, Inc. 's 0. 51x — a PEG below 1. 0 traditionally signals the market is underpricing earnings growth.

Over the past 5 years, The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc.

(HIG) delivered a total return of +112. 7%, compared to -18. 9% for AMERISAFE, Inc. (AMSF). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: WRB returned +360. 0% versus AMSF's +31. 8%. 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), W.

R. Berkley Corporation (WRB) is the lower-risk stock at 0. 02β versus The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc. 's 0. 29β — meaning HIG is approximately 1520% more volatile than WRB relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, AMERISAFE, Inc. (AMSF) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 0% versus 29% for W. R. Berkley Corporation — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.

By revenue growth (latest reported year), W.

R. Berkley Corporation (WRB) is pulling ahead at 7. 8% versus 2. 6% for AMERISAFE, Inc. (AMSF). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc. grew EPS 28. 7% year-over-year, compared to -14. 5% for AMERISAFE, Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, TRV leads at 9. 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.

AMERISAFE, Inc.

(AMSF) is the more profitable company, earning 14. 9% net margin versus 12. 1% for W. R. Berkley Corporation — meaning it keeps 14. 9% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: AMSF leads at 18. 6% versus 15. 9% for WRB. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — AMSF leads at 46. 4%, 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 Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc. (HIG) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 0. 44x versus The Travelers Companies, Inc. 's 0. 51x. A PEG below 1. 0 is traditionally considered the threshold for growth-adjusted undervaluation. On forward earnings alone, The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc. (HIG) trades at 10. 1x forward P/E versus 14. 4x for AMERISAFE, Inc. — 4. 4x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for AMSF: 46. 9% to $44. 50.

All stocks in this comparison pay dividends.

AMERISAFE, Inc. (AMSF) offers the highest yield at 8. 4%, versus 1. 4% for The Travelers Companies, Inc. (TRV).

For long-horizon retirement investors, W.

R. Berkley Corporation (WRB) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0. 02), 2. 6% yield, +360. 0% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (WRB: +360. 0%, AMSF: +31. 8%), 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.