Insurance - Life
Compare Stocks
4 / 10Stock Comparison
LNC vs PRU vs MET vs UNM
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Insurance - Life
Insurance - Life
Insurance - Life
LNC vs PRU vs MET vs UNM — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Insurance - Life | Insurance - Life | Insurance - Life | Insurance - Life |
| Market Cap | $6.41B | $34.86B | $52.27B | $12.96B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $18.46B | $61.82B | $76.13B | $13.30B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $2.11B | $3.48B | $3.38B | $781M |
| Gross Margin | 26.0% | 30.8% | 25.6% | 33.9% |
| Operating Margin | 13.7% | 8.2% | 6.1% | 7.5% |
| Forward P/E | 4.9x | 7.4x | 8.2x | 9.2x |
| Total Debt | $6.36B | $22.96B | $20.18B | $3.90B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $5.80B | $19.71B | $22.03B | $158M |
LNC vs PRU vs MET vs UNM — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | May 20 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lincoln National Co… (LNC) | 100 | 99.2 | -0.8% |
| Prudential Financia… (PRU) | 100 | 164.3 | +64.3% |
| MetLife, Inc. (MET) | 100 | 222.6 | +122.6% |
| Unum Group (UNM) | 100 | 529.8 | +429.8% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: LNC vs PRU vs MET vs UNM
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
LNC carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for growth exposure and valuation efficiency.
- Rev growth 53.6%, EPS growth 474.2%, 3Y rev CAGR 0.7%
- PEG 0.15 vs UNM's 4.76
- 53.6% revenue growth vs PRU's -14.0%
- Lower P/E (4.9x vs 9.2x), PEG 0.15 vs 4.76
PRU is the clearest fit if your priority is income & stability and defensive.
- Dividend streak 8 yrs, beta 0.97, yield 5.5%
- Beta 0.97, yield 5.5%, current ratio 0.61x
- 5.5% yield, 8-year raise streak, vs UNM's 2.2%
MET lags the leaders in this set but could rank higher in a more targeted comparison.
UNM is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if long-term compounding and sleep-well-at-night is your priority.
- 175.7% 10Y total return vs MET's 156.8%
- Lower volatility, beta 0.48, Low D/E 35.1%
- Beta 0.48 vs LNC's 1.34, lower leverage
- 1.6% ROA vs MET's 0.5%, ROIC 4.7% vs 13.1%
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 53.6% revenue growth vs PRU's -14.0% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (4.9x vs 9.2x), PEG 0.15 vs 4.76 | |
| Quality / Margins | Combined ratio 0.8 vs MET's 0.9 (lower = better underwriting) | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.48 vs LNC's 1.34, lower leverage | |
| Dividends | 5.5% yield, 8-year raise streak, vs UNM's 2.2% | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +19.5% vs UNM's +3.3% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 1.6% ROA vs MET's 0.5%, ROIC 4.7% vs 13.1% |
LNC vs PRU vs MET vs UNM — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
LNC vs PRU vs MET vs UNM — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 4 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
LNC leads in 2 of 6 categories
UNM leads 2 • PRU leads 0 • MET leads 0 • 2 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
LNC leads this category, winning 3 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
MET is the larger business by revenue, generating $76.1B annually — 5.7x UNM's $13.3B. LNC is the more profitable business, keeping 11.4% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to MET's 4.4%. On growth, MET holds the edge at +29.1% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $18.5B | $61.8B | $76.1B | $13.3B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $2.8B | $5.4B | $5.7B | $1.1B |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | $2.1B | $3.5B | $3.4B | $781M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | -$178M | $9.8B | $18.1B | $539M |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +26.0% | +30.8% | +25.6% | +33.9% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | +13.7% | +8.2% | +6.1% | +7.5% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | +11.4% | +5.6% | +4.4% | +5.9% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | -1.0% | +15.8% | +23.8% | +4.1% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +9.4% | +6.3% | +29.1% | +9.0% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +164.4% | -12.8% | -34.3% | +33.0% |
Valuation Metrics
LNC leads this category, winning 6 of 7 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 2.0x trailing earnings, LNC trades at a 89% valuation discount to UNM's 18.8x P/E. Adjusting for growth (PEG ratio), LNC offers better value at 0.06x vs UNM's 9.72x — a lower PEG means you pay less per unit of expected earnings growth.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $6.4B | $34.9B | $52.3B | $13.0B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $7.0B | $38.1B | $50.4B | $16.7B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | 2.04x | 9.80x | 16.70x | 18.75x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | 4.89x | 7.40x | 8.19x | 9.17x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | 0.06x | — | — | 9.72x |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 1.69x | 7.76x | 8.81x | 15.81x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 0.36x | 0.57x | 0.68x | 0.99x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 0.79x | 0.98x | 1.84x | 1.25x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | — | 5.56x | 2.89x | 23.34x |
Profitability & Efficiency
UNM leads this category, winning 4 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
LNC delivers a 20.2% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $20 in annual profit, vs $7 for UNM. UNM carries lower financial leverage with a 0.35x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to LNC's 0.77x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), MET scores 8/9 vs UNM's 5/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | +20.2% | +10.3% | +11.9% | +7.1% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | +0.5% | +0.6% | +0.5% | +1.6% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | +32.7% | +10.0% | +13.1% | +4.7% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | +1.1% | +0.9% | +1.0% | +1.5% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 5 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.77x | 0.65x | 0.70x | 0.35x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $554M | $3.2B | -$1.8B | $3.7B |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $5.8B | $19.7B | $22.0B | $158M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $6.4B | $23.0B | $20.2B | $3.9B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | 11.43x | 4.76x | 5.39x | 5.48x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
Evenly matched — LNC and UNM each lead in 3 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in UNM five years ago would be worth $29,208 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $6,787 for LNC. Over the past 12 months, LNC leads with a +19.5% total return vs UNM's +3.3%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors LNC at 26.6% vs PRU's 12.0% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | -14.4% | -10.8% | +0.5% | +5.1% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | +19.5% | +3.7% | +7.9% | +3.3% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +102.9% | +40.4% | +61.5% | +90.4% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -32.1% | +18.7% | +35.3% | +192.1% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +29.1% | +88.9% | +156.8% | +175.7% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | +26.6% | +12.0% | +17.3% | +23.9% |
Risk & Volatility
UNM leads this category, winning 2 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
UNM is the less volatile stock with a 0.48 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than LNC's 1.34 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. UNM currently trades 96.6% from its 52-week high vs LNC's 80.4% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 1.34x | 0.97x | 1.09x | 0.48x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $46.82 | $119.76 | $83.64 | $83.13 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $31.61 | $91.89 | $67.33 | $68.28 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +80.4% | +83.6% | +95.8% | +96.6% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 57.7 | 58.5 | 66.3 | 64.3 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 2.1M | 2.3M | 3.5M | 1.5M |
Analyst Outlook
Evenly matched — PRU and UNM each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: LNC as "Hold", PRU as "Hold", MET as "Buy", UNM as "Hold". Consensus price targets imply 22.1% upside for UNM (target: $98) vs 4.0% for PRU (target: $104). For income investors, PRU offers the higher dividend yield at 5.50% vs UNM's 2.21%.
| Metric | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Hold | Hold | Buy | Hold |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $43.50 | $104.13 | $96.50 | $98.00 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 28 | 37 | 33 | 30 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | +4.7% | +5.5% | +2.8% | +2.2% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 0 | 8 | 13 | 20 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | $1.77 | $5.50 | $2.27 | $1.77 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | 0.0% | +2.9% | +7.4% | +7.8% |
LNC leads in 2 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow, Valuation Metrics). UNM leads in 2 (Profitability & Efficiency, Risk & Volatility). 2 tied.
LNC vs PRU vs MET vs UNM: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is LNC or PRU or MET or UNM a better buy right now?
For growth investors, Lincoln National Corporation (LNC) is the stronger pick with 53.
6% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -14. 0% for Prudential Financial, Inc. (PRU). Lincoln National Corporation (LNC) offers the better valuation at 2. 0x trailing P/E (4. 9x 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 — LNC or PRU or MET or UNM?
On trailing P/E, Lincoln National Corporation (LNC) is the cheapest at 2.
0x versus Unum Group at 18. 8x. On forward P/E, Lincoln National Corporation is actually cheaper at 4. 9x. The PEG ratio (P/E divided by earnings growth rate) is the most growth-adjusted single valuation metric: Lincoln National Corporation wins at 0. 15x versus Unum Group's 4. 76x — a PEG below 1. 0 traditionally signals the market is underpricing earnings growth.
03Which is the better long-term investment — LNC or PRU or MET or UNM?
Over the past 5 years, Unum Group (UNM) delivered a total return of +192.
1%, compared to -32. 1% for Lincoln National Corporation (LNC). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: UNM returned +175. 7% versus LNC's +29. 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 — LNC or PRU or MET or UNM?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Unum Group (UNM) is the lower-risk stock at 0.
48β versus Lincoln National Corporation's 1. 34β — meaning LNC is approximately 179% more volatile than UNM relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Unum Group (UNM) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 35% versus 77% for Lincoln National Corporation — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — LNC or PRU or MET or UNM?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), Lincoln National Corporation (LNC) is pulling ahead at 53.
6% versus -14. 0% for Prudential Financial, Inc. (PRU). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Lincoln National Corporation grew EPS 474. 2% year-over-year, compared to -54. 8% for Unum Group. 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 — LNC or PRU or MET or UNM?
Lincoln National Corporation (LNC) is the more profitable company, earning 18.
2% net margin versus 4. 4% for MetLife, Inc. — meaning it keeps 18. 2% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: LNC leads at 22. 4% versus 6. 0% for MET. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — PRU leads at 42. 0%, 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 LNC or PRU or MET or UNM more undervalued right now?
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, Lincoln National Corporation (LNC) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 0. 15x versus Unum Group's 4. 76x. A PEG below 1. 0 is traditionally considered the threshold for growth-adjusted undervaluation. On forward earnings alone, Lincoln National Corporation (LNC) trades at 4. 9x forward P/E versus 9. 2x for Unum Group — 4. 3x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for UNM: 22. 1% to $98. 00.
08Which pays a better dividend — LNC or PRU or MET or UNM?
All stocks in this comparison pay dividends.
Prudential Financial, Inc. (PRU) offers the highest yield at 5. 5%, versus 2. 2% for Unum Group (UNM).
09Is LNC or PRU or MET or UNM better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, Unum Group (UNM) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0.
48), 2. 2% yield, +175. 7% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (UNM: +175. 7%, LNC: +29. 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 LNC and PRU and MET and UNM?
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: LNC is a small-cap high-growth stock; PRU is a mid-cap deep-value stock; MET is a mid-cap deep-value stock; UNM is a mid-cap quality compounder 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.