Insurance - Life
Compare Stocks
4 / 10Stock Comparison
FG vs BLK vs IVZ vs TROW
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Asset Management
Asset Management
Asset Management
FG vs BLK vs IVZ vs TROW — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Insurance - Life | Asset Management | Asset Management | Asset Management |
| Market Cap | $3.67B | $165.65B | $11.92B | $22.54B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $5.86B | $20.41B | $6.38B | $7.31B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $530M | $6.10B | $-243M | $2.09B |
| Gross Margin | 21.0% | 49.4% | 43.2% | 62.7% |
| Operating Margin | 6.0% | 37.1% | -10.9% | 29.9% |
| Forward P/E | 6.6x | 20.1x | 10.4x | 11.2x |
| Total Debt | $2.24B | $14.22B | $10.12B | $860M |
| Cash & Equiv. | $1.49B | $12.76B | $1.98B | $3.38B |
FG vs BLK vs IVZ vs TROW — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | Nov 22 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| F&G Annuities & Lif… (FG) | 100 | 117.8 | +17.8% |
| BlackRock, Inc. (BLK) | 100 | 149.1 | +49.1% |
| Invesco Ltd. (IVZ) | 100 | 140.4 | +40.4% |
| T. Rowe Price Group… (TROW) | 100 | 82.9 | -17.1% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: FG vs BLK vs IVZ vs TROW
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
FG is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if income & stability is your priority.
- Dividend streak 4 yrs, beta 1.02, yield 3.8%
- Lower P/E (6.6x vs 11.2x)
- Beta 1.02 vs IVZ's 1.67, lower leverage
BLK carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for growth exposure and long-term compounding.
- Rev growth 14.3%, EPS growth 15.1%
- 245.8% 10Y total return vs FG's 78.6%
- 14.3% NII/revenue growth vs TROW's 3.1%
- 31.2% margin vs IVZ's -4.4%
IVZ is the clearest fit if your priority is momentum.
- +93.1% vs FG's -22.0%
TROW is the clearest fit if your priority is sleep-well-at-night and defensive.
- Lower volatility, beta 1.18, Low D/E 7.1%, current ratio 73.08x
- Beta 1.18, yield 4.9%, current ratio 73.08x
- NIM 3.4% vs BLK's 0.2%
- 14.4% ROA vs IVZ's -0.9%, ROIC 13.3% vs -2.3%
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 14.3% NII/revenue growth vs TROW's 3.1% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (6.6x vs 11.2x) | |
| Quality / Margins | 31.2% margin vs IVZ's -4.4% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 1.02 vs IVZ's 1.67, lower leverage | |
| Dividends | 1.9% yield, 15-year raise streak, vs TROW's 4.9% | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +93.1% vs FG's -22.0% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 14.4% ROA vs IVZ's -0.9%, ROIC 13.3% vs -2.3% |
FG vs BLK vs IVZ vs TROW — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
FG vs BLK vs IVZ vs TROW — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 4 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
FG leads in 1 of 6 categories
TROW leads 1 • IVZ leads 1 • BLK leads 0 • 3 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
Evenly matched — FG and BLK each lead in 2 of 5 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
BLK is the larger business by revenue, generating $20.4B annually — 3.5x FG's $5.9B. BLK is the more profitable business, keeping 31.2% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to IVZ's -4.4%.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $5.9B | $20.4B | $6.4B | $7.3B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $1.4B | $8.3B | $1.2B | $2.7B |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | $530M | $6.1B | -$243M | $2.1B |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | $4.8B | $3.9B | $1.9B | $2.3B |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +21.0% | +49.4% | +43.2% | +62.7% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | +6.0% | +37.1% | -10.9% | +29.9% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | +9.0% | +31.2% | -4.4% | +28.5% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | +82.3% | +23.0% | +22.6% | +20.2% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +39.0% | — | — | — |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +9.9% | -22.7% | +34.2% | +3.7% |
Valuation Metrics
FG leads this category, winning 5 of 6 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 11.2x trailing earnings, TROW trades at a 56% valuation discount to BLK's 25.4x P/E. On an enterprise value basis, FG's 4.5x EV/EBITDA is more attractive than BLK's 20.6x.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $3.7B | $165.7B | $11.9B | $22.5B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $4.4B | $167.1B | $20.1B | $20.0B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | 14.41x | 25.42x | -16.77x | 11.20x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | 6.60x | 20.10x | 10.44x | 11.22x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | 3.13x | — | — |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 4.48x | 20.62x | 16.34x | 7.64x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 0.64x | 8.12x | 1.87x | 3.08x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 0.73x | 3.28x | 0.94x | 1.92x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | 0.79x | 35.24x | 8.27x | 15.24x |
Profitability & Efficiency
TROW leads this category, winning 7 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
TROW delivers a 17.6% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $18 in annual profit, vs $-2 for IVZ. TROW carries lower financial leverage with a 0.07x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to IVZ's 0.78x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), BLK scores 6/9 vs TROW's 4/9, reflecting solid financial health.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | +11.1% | +9.9% | -1.7% | +17.6% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | +0.5% | +3.7% | -0.9% | +14.4% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | +5.0% | +9.9% | -2.3% | +13.3% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | +0.4% | +5.8% | -2.6% | +15.9% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 5 | 6 | 6 | 4 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.45x | 0.29x | 0.78x | 0.07x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $751M | $1.5B | $8.1B | -$2.5B |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $1.5B | $12.8B | $2.0B | $3.4B |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $2.2B | $14.2B | $10.1B | $860M |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | 2.87x | 9.27x | -6.19x | — |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
IVZ leads this category, winning 4 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in FG five years ago would be worth $17,857 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $6,915 for TROW. Over the past 12 months, IVZ leads with a +93.1% total return vs FG's -22.0%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors IVZ at 21.6% vs TROW's 3.7% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | -9.0% | -1.1% | +0.4% | +0.2% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | -22.0% | +18.3% | +93.1% | +18.9% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +77.6% | +75.7% | +79.8% | +11.5% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +78.6% | +33.5% | +8.2% | -30.9% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +78.6% | +245.8% | +22.1% | +93.6% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | +21.1% | +20.7% | +21.6% | +3.7% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — FG and IVZ each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
FG is the less volatile stock with a 1.02 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than IVZ's 1.67 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. IVZ currently trades 90.6% from its 52-week high vs FG's 73.8% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 1.02x | 1.28x | 1.67x | 1.18x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $36.70 | $1219.94 | $29.61 | $118.22 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $20.57 | $914.84 | $14.10 | $85.51 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +73.8% | +87.5% | +90.6% | +87.6% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 71.6 | 61.3 | 69.4 | 78.2 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 591K | 790K | 5.1M | 2.3M |
Analyst Outlook
Evenly matched — BLK and TROW each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: FG as "Hold", BLK as "Buy", IVZ as "Hold", TROW as "Hold". Consensus price targets imply 22.8% upside for BLK (target: $1312) vs -2.3% for TROW (target: $101). For income investors, TROW offers the higher dividend yield at 4.93% vs BLK's 1.92%.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Hold | Buy | Hold | Hold |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $31.00 | $1311.78 | $29.72 | $101.20 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 9 | 33 | 28 | 38 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | +3.8% | +1.9% | +3.1% | +4.9% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 4 | 15 | 4 | 3 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | $1.04 | $20.46 | $0.83 | $5.11 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | +0.3% | +1.2% | +15.6% | +2.8% |
FG leads in 1 of 6 categories (Valuation Metrics). TROW leads in 1 (Profitability & Efficiency). 3 tied.
FG vs BLK vs IVZ vs TROW: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is FG or BLK or IVZ or TROW a better buy right now?
For growth investors, BlackRock, Inc.
(BLK) is the stronger pick with 14. 3% revenue growth year-over-year, versus 3. 1% for T. Rowe Price Group, Inc. (TROW). T. Rowe Price Group, Inc. (TROW) offers the better valuation at 11. 2x trailing P/E (11. 2x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate BlackRock, Inc. (BLK) a "Buy" — based on 33 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 — FG or BLK or IVZ or TROW?
On trailing P/E, T.
Rowe Price Group, Inc. (TROW) is the cheapest at 11. 2x versus BlackRock, Inc. at 25. 4x. On forward P/E, F&G Annuities & Life, Inc. is actually cheaper at 6. 6x — notably different from the trailing picture, reflecting expected earnings growth.
03Which is the better long-term investment — FG or BLK or IVZ or TROW?
Over the past 5 years, F&G Annuities & Life, Inc.
(FG) delivered a total return of +78. 6%, compared to -30. 9% for T. Rowe Price Group, Inc. (TROW). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: BLK returned +245. 8% versus IVZ's +22. 1%. 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 — FG or BLK or IVZ or TROW?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), F&G Annuities & Life, Inc.
(FG) is the lower-risk stock at 1. 02β versus Invesco Ltd. 's 1. 67β — meaning IVZ is approximately 63% more volatile than FG relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, T. Rowe Price Group, Inc. (TROW) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 7% versus 78% for Invesco Ltd. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — FG or BLK or IVZ or TROW?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), BlackRock, Inc.
(BLK) is pulling ahead at 14. 3% versus 3. 1% for T. Rowe Price Group, Inc. (TROW). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: BlackRock, Inc. grew EPS 15. 1% year-over-year, compared to -235. 6% for Invesco Ltd.. 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 — FG or BLK or IVZ or TROW?
BlackRock, Inc.
(BLK) is the more profitable company, earning 31. 2% net margin versus -4. 4% for Invesco Ltd. — meaning it keeps 31. 2% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: BLK leads at 37. 1% versus -10. 9% for IVZ. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — TROW leads at 62. 7%, 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 FG or BLK or IVZ or TROW more undervalued right now?
On forward earnings alone, F&G Annuities & Life, Inc.
(FG) trades at 6. 6x forward P/E versus 20. 1x for BlackRock, Inc. — 13. 5x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for BLK: 22. 8% to $1311. 78.
08Which pays a better dividend — FG or BLK or IVZ or TROW?
All stocks in this comparison pay dividends.
T. Rowe Price Group, Inc. (TROW) offers the highest yield at 4. 9%, versus 1. 9% for BlackRock, Inc. (BLK).
09Is FG or BLK or IVZ or TROW better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, F&G Annuities & Life, Inc.
(FG) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 1. 02), 3. 8% yield). Invesco Ltd. (IVZ) carries a higher beta of 1. 67 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (FG: +78. 6%, IVZ: +22. 1%), 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 FG and BLK and IVZ and TROW?
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: FG is a small-cap deep-value stock; BLK is a mid-cap quality compounder stock; IVZ is a mid-cap income-oriented stock; TROW is a mid-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.