FG vs GL vs CNO vs PFG vs MET

For growth investors, MetLife, Inc.

(MET) is the stronger pick with 10. 2% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -3. 1% for Principal Financial Group, Inc. (PFG). Globe Life Inc. (GL) offers the better valuation at 10. 8x trailing P/E (9. 8x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate MetLife, Inc. (MET) 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.

On trailing P/E, Globe Life Inc.

(GL) is the cheapest at 10. 8x versus CNO Financial Group, Inc. at 19. 5x. 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. The PEG ratio (P/E divided by earnings growth rate) is the most growth-adjusted single valuation metric: Globe Life Inc. wins at 0. 63x versus Principal Financial Group, Inc. 's 13. 78x — a PEG below 1. 0 traditionally signals the market is underpricing earnings growth.

Over the past 5 years, CNO Financial Group, Inc.

(CNO) delivered a total return of +81. 9%, compared to +32. 9% for MetLife, Inc. (MET). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: PFG returned +195. 8% versus FG's +78. 6%. 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), Globe Life Inc.

(GL) is the lower-risk stock at 0. 48β versus MetLife, Inc. 's 1. 09β — meaning MET is approximately 127% more volatile than GL relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Principal Financial Group, Inc. (PFG) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 34% versus 154% for CNO Financial Group, Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.

By revenue growth (latest reported year), MetLife, Inc.

(MET) is pulling ahead at 10. 2% versus -3. 1% for Principal Financial Group, Inc. (PFG). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Globe Life Inc. grew EPS 17. 8% year-over-year, compared to -61. 5% for F&G Annuities & Life, Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, FG leads at 36. 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.

Globe Life Inc.

(GL) is the more profitable company, earning 19. 4% net margin versus 4. 4% for MetLife, Inc. — meaning it keeps 19. 4% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: GL leads at 24. 4% versus 5. 6% for FG. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — PFG leads at 45. 2%, 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, Globe Life Inc. (GL) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 0. 63x 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, F&G Annuities & Life, Inc. (FG) trades at 6. 6x forward P/E versus 10. 7x for Principal Financial Group, Inc. — 4. 1x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for MET: 22. 4% to $96. 50.

All stocks in this comparison pay dividends.

F&G Annuities & Life, Inc. (FG) offers the highest yield at 3. 8%, versus 0. 7% for Globe Life Inc. (GL).

For long-horizon retirement investors, Globe Life Inc.

(GL) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0. 48), 0. 7% yield, +175. 7% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (GL: +175. 7%, MET: +153. 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.

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; GL is a mid-cap deep-value stock; CNO is a small-cap quality compounder stock; PFG is a mid-cap income-oriented stock; MET 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.