Asset Management
Compare Stocks
4 / 10Stock Comparison
CRBG vs EQH vs MET vs LNC
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Insurance - Diversified
Insurance - Life
Insurance - Life
CRBG vs EQH vs MET vs LNC — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Asset Management | Insurance - Diversified | Insurance - Life | Insurance - Life |
| Market Cap | $12.54B | $12.07B | $51.39B | $6.87B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $2.89B | $10.99B | $76.94B | $18.88B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $245M | $-1.38B | $3.62B | $1.73B |
| Gross Margin | 80.9% | 59.2% | 28.4% | 17.0% |
| Operating Margin | -18.7% | -10.9% | 6.3% | 12.1% |
| Forward P/E | 5.6x | 6.0x | 8.0x | 4.7x |
| Total Debt | $10.91B | $6.56B | $20.18B | $6.43B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $447M | $12.46B | $22.03B | $9.50B |
CRBG vs EQH vs MET vs LNC — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | Sep 22 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Corebridge Financia… (CRBG) | 100 | 139.4 | +39.4% |
| Equitable Holdings,… (EQH) | 100 | 162.7 | +62.7% |
| MetLife, Inc. (MET) | 100 | 129.7 | +29.7% |
| Lincoln National Co… (LNC) | 100 | 81.8 | -18.2% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: CRBG vs EQH vs MET vs LNC
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
CRBG plays a supporting role in this comparison — it may shine differently against other peers.
EQH lags the leaders in this set but could rank higher in a more targeted comparison.
MET is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if income & stability and growth exposure is your priority.
- Dividend streak 13 yrs, beta 1.09, yield 2.9%
- Rev growth 10.2%, EPS growth -19.2%, 3Y rev CAGR 4.3%
- 153.9% 10Y total return vs EQH's 140.8%
- Lower volatility, beta 1.09, Low D/E 69.8%, current ratio 0.65x
LNC carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for value and quality.
- Lower P/E (4.7x vs 6.0x)
- 9.1% margin vs CRBG's -12.7%
- 4.9% yield, vs MET's 2.9%
- +11.0% vs EQH's -13.7%
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 10.2% revenue growth vs EQH's -6.2% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (4.7x vs 6.0x) | |
| Quality / Margins | 9.1% margin vs CRBG's -12.7% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 1.09 vs CRBG's 1.47, lower leverage | |
| Dividends | 4.9% yield, vs MET's 2.9% | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +11.0% vs EQH's -13.7% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 0.5% ROA vs EQH's -0.5% |
CRBG vs EQH vs MET vs LNC — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
CRBG vs EQH vs MET vs LNC — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 4 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
LNC leads in 3 of 6 categories
MET leads 1 • CRBG leads 0 • EQH leads 0 • 2 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
LNC leads this category, winning 4 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
MET is the larger business by revenue, generating $76.9B annually — 26.6x CRBG's $2.9B. LNC is the more profitable business, keeping 9.1% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to CRBG's -12.7%. On growth, LNC holds the edge at +12.5% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $2.9B | $11.0B | $76.9B | $18.9B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $1.0B | -$494M | $5.9B | $2.4B |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | $245M | -$1.4B | $3.6B | $1.7B |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | $1.6B | $737M | $16.5B | $243M |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +80.9% | +59.2% | +28.4% | +17.0% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | -18.7% | -10.9% | +6.3% | +12.1% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | -12.7% | -12.6% | +4.7% | +9.1% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | +70.0% | +6.7% | +21.5% | +1.3% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | — | -9.5% | +4.4% | +12.5% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +90.8% | -74.6% | +35.9% | +100.0% |
Valuation Metrics
LNC leads this category, winning 4 of 6 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 6.2x trailing earnings, LNC trades at a 63% valuation discount to MET's 16.4x P/E. On an enterprise value basis, LNC's 2.4x EV/EBITDA is more attractive than CRBG's 1533.1x.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $12.5B | $12.1B | $51.4B | $6.9B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $23.0B | $6.2B | $49.5B | $3.8B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | -40.37x | -8.88x | 16.42x | 6.15x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | 5.59x | 5.96x | 8.05x | 4.67x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | — | — | 0.34x |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 1533.08x | — | 8.66x | 2.43x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 4.34x | 1.03x | 0.67x | 0.38x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 1.06x | 7.15x | 1.81x | 0.61x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | 6.20x | 17.78x | 2.84x | — |
Profitability & Efficiency
Evenly matched — MET and LNC each lead in 4 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
LNC delivers a 16.8% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $17 in annual profit, vs $-49 for EQH. LNC carries lower financial leverage with a 0.59x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to EQH's 3.67x. 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 | +1.8% | -49.3% | +12.7% | +16.8% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | +0.1% | -0.5% | +0.5% | +0.4% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | -1.6% | — | +13.1% | +12.0% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | -0.1% | -0.5% | +1.0% | +0.4% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 6 | 5 | 8 | 3 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.78x | 3.67x | 0.70x | 0.59x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $10.5B | -$5.9B | -$1.8B | -$3.1B |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $447M | $12.5B | $22.0B | $9.5B |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $10.9B | $6.6B | $20.2B | $6.4B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | 1.79x | -4.33x | 5.51x | 15.29x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
LNC leads this category, winning 3 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in CRBG five years ago would be worth $15,794 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $6,476 for LNC. Over the past 12 months, LNC leads with a +11.0% total return vs EQH's -13.7%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors LNC at 24.9% vs MET's 16.7% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | -8.8% | -10.1% | -1.2% | -18.2% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | -9.4% | -13.7% | +4.9% | +11.0% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +91.6% | +94.2% | +58.9% | +95.0% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +57.9% | +35.1% | +32.9% | -35.2% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +57.9% | +140.8% | +153.9% | +24.5% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | +24.2% | +24.8% | +16.7% | +24.9% |
Risk & Volatility
MET leads this category, winning 2 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
MET is the less volatile stock with a 1.09 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than CRBG's 1.47 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. MET currently trades 94.2% from its 52-week high vs CRBG's 75.1% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 1.47x | 1.40x | 1.09x | 1.34x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $36.57 | $56.61 | $83.64 | $46.82 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $22.19 | $35.20 | $67.33 | $31.61 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +75.1% | +75.7% | +94.2% | +76.8% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 63.5 | 64.7 | 67.1 | 58.2 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 5.5M | 4.0M | 3.5M | 2.1M |
Analyst Outlook
Evenly matched — MET and LNC each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: CRBG as "Buy", EQH as "Buy", MET as "Buy", LNC as "Hold". Consensus price targets imply 37.9% upside for EQH (target: $59) vs 21.0% for LNC (target: $44). For income investors, LNC offers the higher dividend yield at 4.86% vs EQH's 2.46%.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Buy | Buy | Buy | Hold |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $33.83 | $59.14 | $96.50 | $43.50 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 18 | 21 | 33 | 28 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | +3.5% | +2.5% | +2.9% | +4.9% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 1 | 8 | 13 | 0 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | $0.95 | $1.05 | $2.27 | $1.75 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | +16.9% | +23.4% | +7.6% | 0.0% |
LNC leads in 3 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow, Valuation Metrics). MET leads in 1 (Risk & Volatility). 2 tied.
CRBG vs EQH vs MET vs LNC: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is CRBG or EQH or MET or LNC a better buy right now?
For growth investors, MetLife, Inc.
(MET) is the stronger pick with 10. 2% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -6. 2% for Equitable Holdings, Inc. (EQH). 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 Corebridge Financial, Inc. (CRBG) a "Buy" — based on 18 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 — CRBG or EQH or MET or LNC?
On trailing P/E, Lincoln National Corporation (LNC) is the cheapest at 6.
2x versus MetLife, Inc. at 16. 4x. On forward P/E, Lincoln National Corporation is actually cheaper at 4. 7x.
03Which is the better long-term investment — CRBG or EQH or MET or LNC?
Over the past 5 years, Corebridge Financial, Inc.
(CRBG) delivered a total return of +57. 9%, compared to -35. 2% for Lincoln National Corporation (LNC). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: MET returned +153. 9% 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 — CRBG or EQH or MET or LNC?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), MetLife, Inc.
(MET) is the lower-risk stock at 1. 09β versus Corebridge Financial, Inc. 's 1. 47β — meaning CRBG is approximately 35% more volatile than MET relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Lincoln National Corporation (LNC) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 59% versus 4% for Equitable Holdings, Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — CRBG or EQH or MET or LNC?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), MetLife, Inc.
(MET) is pulling ahead at 10. 2% versus -6. 2% for Equitable Holdings, Inc. (EQH). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: MetLife, Inc. grew EPS -19. 2% year-over-year, compared to -227. 8% for Equitable Holdings, Inc.. 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 — CRBG or EQH or MET or LNC?
Lincoln National Corporation (LNC) is the more profitable company, earning 6.
5% net margin versus -12. 7% for Corebridge Financial, Inc. — meaning it keeps 6. 5% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: LNC leads at 7. 3% versus -18. 7% for CRBG. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — CRBG leads at 80. 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 CRBG or EQH or MET or LNC more undervalued right now?
On forward earnings alone, Lincoln National Corporation (LNC) trades at 4.
7x forward P/E versus 8. 0x for MetLife, Inc. — 3. 4x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for EQH: 37. 9% to $59. 14.
08Which pays a better dividend — CRBG or EQH or MET or LNC?
All stocks in this comparison pay dividends.
Lincoln National Corporation (LNC) offers the highest yield at 4. 9%, versus 2. 5% for Equitable Holdings, Inc. (EQH).
09Is CRBG or EQH or MET or LNC better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, MetLife, Inc.
(MET) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 1. 09), 2. 9% yield, +153. 9% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (MET: +153. 9%, CRBG: +57. 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 CRBG and EQH and MET and LNC?
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: CRBG is a mid-cap income-oriented stock; EQH is a mid-cap quality compounder stock; MET is a mid-cap deep-value stock; LNC is a small-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.