Engineering & Construction
Compare Stocks
5 / 10Stock Comparison
FGL vs LNC vs PRU vs FG vs MET
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Insurance - Life
Insurance - Life
Insurance - Life
Insurance - Life
FGL vs LNC vs PRU vs FG vs MET — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Engineering & Construction | Insurance - Life | Insurance - Life | Insurance - Life | Insurance - Life |
| Market Cap | $32M | $6.87B | $34.58B | $3.67B | $51.39B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $90M | $18.88B | $61.82B | $5.86B | $76.94B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $-5M | $1.73B | $3.48B | $530M | $3.62B |
| Gross Margin | 6.9% | 17.0% | 30.8% | 21.0% | 28.4% |
| Operating Margin | -6.2% | 12.1% | 8.2% | 6.0% | 6.3% |
| Forward P/E | — | 4.7x | 7.5x | 7.2x | 7.9x |
| Total Debt | $36M | $6.43B | $22.96B | $2.24B | $20.18B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $14M | $9.50B | $19.71B | $1.49B | $22.03B |
FGL vs LNC vs PRU vs FG vs MET — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | Oct 24 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Founder Group Limit… (FGL) | 100 | 0.5 | -99.5% |
| Lincoln National Co… (LNC) | 100 | 103.0 | +3.0% |
| Prudential Financia… (PRU) | 100 | 82.3 | -17.7% |
| F&G Annuities & Lif… (FG) | 100 | 70.6 | -29.4% |
| MetLife, Inc. (MET) | 100 | 99.6 | -0.4% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: FGL vs LNC vs PRU vs FG vs MET
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
FGL lags the leaders in this set but could rank higher in a more targeted comparison.
LNC carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for value and quality.
- Lower P/E (4.7x vs 7.9x)
- 9.1% margin vs FGL's -5.7%
- +11.0% vs FGL's -98.5%
PRU is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if income & stability and sleep-well-at-night is your priority.
- Dividend streak 8 yrs, beta 0.97, yield 5.5%
- Lower volatility, beta 0.97, Low D/E 64.5%, current ratio 0.61x
- Beta 0.97, yield 5.5%, current ratio 0.61x
- Beta 0.97 vs FGL's 1.89, lower leverage
Among these 5 stocks, FG doesn't own a clear edge in any measured category.
MET ranks third and is worth considering specifically for growth exposure and long-term compounding.
- Rev growth 10.2%, EPS growth -19.2%, 3Y rev CAGR 4.3%
- 153.9% 10Y total return vs FG's 78.6%
- 10.2% revenue growth vs FGL's -39.0%
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 10.2% revenue growth vs FGL's -39.0% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (4.7x vs 7.9x) | |
| Quality / Margins | 9.1% margin vs FGL's -5.7% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.97 vs FGL's 1.89, lower leverage | |
| Dividends | 5.5% yield, 8-year raise streak, vs MET's 2.9%, (1 stock pays no dividend) | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +11.0% vs FGL's -98.5% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 0.6% ROA vs FGL's -5.2%, ROIC 10.0% vs -11.5% |
FGL vs LNC vs PRU vs FG vs MET — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
Segment breakdown not available.
FGL vs LNC vs PRU vs FG vs MET — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 5 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
LNC leads in 2 of 6 categories
FG leads 1 • FGL leads 0 • PRU leads 0 • MET leads 0 • 3 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
FG 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 — 851.7x FGL's $90M. LNC is the more profitable business, keeping 9.1% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to FGL's -5.7%. On growth, FG holds the edge at +39.0% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $90M | $18.9B | $61.8B | $5.9B | $76.9B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | — | $2.4B | $5.4B | $1.4B | $5.9B |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | — | $1.7B | $3.5B | $530M | $3.6B |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | — | $243M | $9.8B | $4.8B | $16.5B |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +6.9% | +17.0% | +30.8% | +21.0% | +28.4% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | -6.2% | +12.1% | +8.2% | +6.0% | +6.3% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | -5.7% | +9.1% | +5.6% | +9.0% | +4.7% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | -8.2% | +1.3% | +15.8% | +82.3% | +21.5% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | — | +12.5% | +6.3% | +39.0% | +4.4% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | — | +100.0% | -12.8% | +9.9% | +35.9% |
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 MET's 8.7x.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $32M | $6.9B | $34.6B | $3.7B | $51.4B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $38M | $3.8B | $37.8B | $4.4B | $49.5B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | -111.24x | 6.15x | 9.73x | 14.41x | 16.42x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | — | 4.66x | 7.50x | 7.16x | 7.94x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | 0.34x | — | — | — |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | — | 2.43x | 7.70x | 4.48x | 8.66x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 1.39x | 0.38x | 0.57x | 0.64x | 0.67x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 7.31x | 0.61x | 0.98x | 0.73x | 1.81x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | — | — | 5.51x | 0.79x | 2.84x |
Profitability & Efficiency
Evenly matched — LNC and MET each lead in 3 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 $-32 for FGL. FG carries lower financial leverage with a 0.45x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to FGL's 2.09x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), MET scores 8/9 vs FGL's 1/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | -32.3% | +16.8% | +10.3% | +11.1% | +12.7% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | -5.2% | +0.4% | +0.6% | +0.5% | +0.5% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | -11.5% | +12.0% | +10.0% | +5.0% | +13.1% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | -31.7% | +0.4% | +0.9% | +0.4% | +1.0% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 1 | 3 | 7 | 5 | 8 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 2.09x | 0.59x | 0.65x | 0.45x | 0.70x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $22M | -$3.1B | $3.2B | $751M | -$1.8B |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $14M | $9.5B | $19.7B | $1.5B | $22.0B |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $36M | $6.4B | $23.0B | $2.2B | $20.2B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | -2.71x | 15.29x | 4.76x | 2.87x | 5.51x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
LNC leads this category, winning 3 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 $60 for FGL. Over the past 12 months, LNC leads with a +11.0% total return vs FGL's -98.5%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors LNC at 24.9% vs FGL's -81.8% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | -88.4% | -18.2% | -11.5% | -9.0% | -1.2% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | -98.5% | +11.0% | +3.6% | -22.0% | +4.9% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -99.4% | +95.0% | +39.5% | +77.6% | +58.9% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -99.4% | -35.2% | +17.7% | +78.6% | +32.9% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -99.2% | +24.5% | +89.0% | +78.6% | +153.9% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | -81.8% | +24.9% | +11.7% | +21.1% | +16.7% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — PRU and MET 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 FGL's 1.89 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 FGL's 1.3% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 1.79x | 1.33x | 0.97x | 1.12x | 1.07x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $143.00 | $46.82 | $119.76 | $36.70 | $83.64 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $0.14 | $31.61 | $91.89 | $20.57 | $67.33 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +1.3% | +76.8% | +83.0% | +73.8% | +94.2% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 39.0 | 58.2 | 58.1 | 71.6 | 67.1 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 135K | 2.1M | 2.3M | 591K | 3.5M |
Analyst Outlook
Evenly matched — PRU and MET each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: LNC as "Hold", PRU as "Hold", FG as "Hold", MET as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 23.5% upside for MET (target: $97) vs 3.8% for PRU (target: $103). For income investors, PRU offers the higher dividend yield at 5.54% vs MET's 2.88%.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | — | Hold | Hold | Hold | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | — | $43.50 | $103.25 | $31.00 | $97.33 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | — | 28 | 37 | 9 | 33 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | — | +4.9% | +5.5% | +3.8% | +2.9% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | — | 0 | 8 | 4 | 13 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | — | $1.75 | $5.50 | $1.04 | $2.27 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | 0.0% | 0.0% | +2.9% | +0.3% | +7.6% |
LNC leads in 2 of 6 categories (Valuation Metrics, Total Returns). FG leads in 1 (Income & Cash Flow). 3 tied.
FGL vs LNC vs PRU vs FG vs MET: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is FGL or LNC or PRU or FG or MET a better buy right now?
For growth investors, MetLife, Inc.
(MET) is the stronger pick with 10. 2% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -39. 0% for Founder Group Limited Ordinary Shares (FGL). 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 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.
02Which has the better valuation — FGL or LNC or PRU or FG or MET?
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 — FGL or LNC or PRU or FG or MET?
Over the past 5 years, F&G Annuities & Life, Inc.
(FG) delivered a total return of +78. 6%, compared to -99. 4% for Founder Group Limited Ordinary Shares (FGL). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: MET returned +152. 0% versus FGL's -99. 2%. 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 — FGL or LNC or PRU or FG or MET?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Prudential Financial, Inc.
(PRU) is the lower-risk stock at 0. 97β versus Founder Group Limited Ordinary Shares's 1. 79β — meaning FGL is approximately 85% more volatile than PRU relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, F&G Annuities & Life, Inc. (FG) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 45% versus 2% for Founder Group Limited Ordinary Shares — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — FGL or LNC or PRU or FG or MET?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), MetLife, Inc.
(MET) is pulling ahead at 10. 2% versus -39. 0% for Founder Group Limited Ordinary Shares (FGL). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Prudential Financial, Inc. grew EPS 36. 3% year-over-year, compared to -114. 5% for Founder Group Limited Ordinary Shares. Over a 3-year CAGR, FGL leads at 53. 1% 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 — FGL or LNC or PRU or FG or MET?
Lincoln National Corporation (LNC) is the more profitable company, earning 6.
5% net margin versus -5. 7% for Founder Group Limited Ordinary Shares — meaning it keeps 6. 5% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: PRU leads at 7. 9% versus -6. 2% for FGL. 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 FGL or LNC or PRU or FG or MET more undervalued right now?
On forward earnings alone, Lincoln National Corporation (LNC) trades at 4.
7x forward P/E versus 7. 9x for MetLife, Inc. — 3. 3x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for MET: 23. 5% to $97. 33.
08Which pays a better dividend — FGL or LNC or PRU or FG or MET?
In this comparison, PRU (5.
5% yield), LNC (4. 9% yield), FG (3. 8% yield), MET (2. 9% yield) pay a dividend. FGL does not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
09Is FGL or LNC or PRU or FG or MET better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, Prudential Financial, Inc.
(PRU) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0. 97), 5. 5% yield). Founder Group Limited Ordinary Shares (FGL) carries a higher beta of 1. 79 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (PRU: +90. 8%, FGL: -99. 2%), 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 FGL and LNC and PRU and FG and MET?
These companies operate in different sectors (FGL (Industrials) and LNC (Financial Services) and PRU (Financial Services) and FG (Financial Services) and MET (Financial Services)), which means they face different economic cycles, regulatory environments, and macro sensitivities — making direct comparison nuanced.
In terms of investment character: FGL is a small-cap quality compounder stock; LNC is a small-cap deep-value stock; PRU is a mid-cap deep-value stock; FG is a small-cap deep-value stock; MET is a mid-cap deep-value stock. LNC, PRU, FG, MET pay a dividend while FGL does not, making them suitable for different income and tax situations. 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.