PRS
Prudential Financial, Inc. 5.62
Insurance - Life
Market Cap$7.97B
5Y Perf.-14.5%
Compare Stocks
2 / 10Try these comparisons:
Stock Comparison
PRS vs AFL
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
AFL
Aflac Incorporated
Insurance - Life
Market Cap$58.52B
5Y Perf.+211.5%
PRS vs AFL — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | PRS | AFL |
|---|---|---|
| Industry | Insurance - Life | Insurance - Life |
| Market Cap | $7.97B | $58.52B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $62.83B | $17.36B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $3.47B | $3.65B |
| Gross Margin | 32.2% | 38.7% |
| Operating Margin | 6.1% | 26.3% |
| Forward P/E | 1.6x | 15.8x |
| Total Debt | $33.28B | $8.41B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $19.75B | $6.25B |
PRS vs AFL — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
PRS
AFL
| Stock | May 20 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prudential Financia… (PRS) | 100 | 85.5 | -14.5% |
| Aflac Incorporated (AFL) | 100 | 311.5 | +211.5% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: PRS vs AFL
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
Bottom line: AFL leads in 5 of 7 categories, making it the strongest pick for growth and revenue expansion and profitability and margin quality. Prudential Financial, Inc. 5.62 is the stronger pick specifically for valuation and capital efficiency and dividend income and shareholder returns. As sector peers, any of these can serve as alternatives in the same allocation.
PRS
Prudential Financial, Inc. 5.62
The Insurance Pick
PRS is the clearest fit if your priority is growth exposure.
- Rev growth -13.7%, EPS growth 33.2%, 3Y rev CAGR 2.2%
- Lower P/E (1.6x vs 15.8x)
- 23.8% yield, 14-year raise streak, vs AFL's 2.0%
Best for: growth exposure
AFL
Aflac Incorporated
The Insurance Pick
AFL carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for income & stability and long-term compounding.
- Dividend streak 37 yrs, beta 0.19, yield 2.0%
- 272.5% 10Y total return vs PRS's 33.9%
- Lower volatility, beta 0.19, Low D/E 28.5%
Best for: income & stability and long-term compounding
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | AFL | -8.8% revenue growth vs PRS's -13.7% |
| Value | PRS | Lower P/E (1.6x vs 15.8x) |
| Quality / Margins | AFL | Combined ratio 0.7 vs PRS's 0.9 (lower = better underwriting) |
| Stability / Safety | AFL | Beta 0.19 vs PRS's 0.77, lower leverage |
| Dividends | PRS | 23.8% yield, 14-year raise streak, vs AFL's 2.0% |
| Momentum (1Y) | AFL | +8.4% vs PRS's +5.2% |
| Efficiency (ROA) | AFL | 3.0% ROA vs PRS's 0.5%, ROIC 11.8% vs 8.0% |
PRS vs AFL — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
FY 2025
FY 2025
PRS vs AFL — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 2 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
BEST OVERALLAFLLAGGINGPRS
PRSPrudential Financial,…
1leads
AFLAflac Incorporated
3leads
6 Total Categories
CATEGORYLEADERvs PRSMETRICS WON
Income & Cash FlowRevenue, margins, and cash flow strength
Tied
—
Valuation MetricsMultiples, price ratios, and targets
PRS6/6
Profitability & EfficiencyROE, ROIC, leverage, and quality scores
AFL7/8
Total Returns1Y, 3Y, 5Y total returns with dividends
AFL6/6
Risk & VolatilityBeta, volatility, and downside exposure
AFL2/2
Analyst OutlookRatings, price targets, and dividends
Tied
—
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
Evenly matched — PRS and AFL each lead in 3 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
PRS is the larger business by revenue, generating $62.8B annually — 3.6x AFL's $17.4B. AFL is the more profitable business, keeping 21.0% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to PRS's 5.5%. On growth, PRS holds the edge at +15.3% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | PRSPrudential Financ… | AFLAflac Incorporated |
|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $62.8B | $17.4B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $4.1B | $5.5B |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | $3.5B | $3.6B |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | $9.8B | $2.6B |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +32.2% | +38.7% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | +6.1% | +26.3% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | +5.5% | +21.0% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | +15.6% | +14.7% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +15.3% | -10.9% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -12.8% | -24.3% |
Evenly matched — PRS and AFL each lead in 3 of 6 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
PRS leads this category, winning 6 of 6 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 2.3x trailing earnings, PRS trades at a 86% valuation discount to AFL's 16.6x P/E. On an enterprise value basis, PRS's 4.4x EV/EBITDA is more attractive than AFL's 11.0x.
| Metric | PRSPrudential Financ… | AFLAflac Incorporated |
|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $8.0B | $58.5B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $21.5B | $60.7B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | 2.29x | 16.63x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | 1.59x | 15.76x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | 33.17x |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 4.38x | 11.00x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 0.13x | 3.36x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 0.23x | 2.05x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | 1.27x | 22.90x |
PRS leads this category, winning 6 of 6 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
AFL leads this category, winning 7 of 8 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
AFL delivers a 13.1% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $13 in annual profit, vs $10 for PRS. AFL carries lower financial leverage with a 0.29x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to PRS's 0.94x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), PRS scores 6/9 vs AFL's 4/9, reflecting solid financial health.
| Metric | PRSPrudential Financ… | AFLAflac Incorporated |
|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | +10.2% | +13.1% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | +0.5% | +3.0% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | +8.0% | +11.8% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | +0.6% | +4.0% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 6 | 4 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.94x | 0.29x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $13.5B | $2.2B |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $19.7B | $6.2B |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $33.3B | $8.4B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | — | 21.00x |
AFL leads this category, winning 7 of 8 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
AFL leads this category, winning 6 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in AFL five years ago would be worth $21,884 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $10,688 for PRS. Over the past 12 months, AFL leads with a +8.4% total return vs PRS's +5.2%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors AFL at 21.0% vs PRS's 3.1% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | PRSPrudential Financ… | AFLAflac Incorporated |
|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | -3.1% | +3.6% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | +5.2% | +8.4% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +9.7% | +77.1% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +6.9% | +118.8% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +33.9% | +272.5% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | +3.1% | +21.0% |
AFL leads this category, winning 6 of 6 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
AFL leads this category, winning 2 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
AFL is the less volatile stock with a 0.19 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than PRS's 0.77 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. AFL currently trades 95.2% from its 52-week high vs PRS's 90.9% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | PRSPrudential Financ… | AFLAflac Incorporated |
|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 0.77x | 0.19x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $25.19 | $119.32 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $5.84 | $96.95 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +90.9% | +95.2% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 55.7 | 51.0 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 34K | 2.1M |
AFL leads this category, winning 2 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Evenly matched — PRS and AFL each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
For income investors, PRS offers the higher dividend yield at 23.78% vs AFL's 1.98%.
| Metric | PRSPrudential Financ… | AFLAflac Incorporated |
|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | — | Hold |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | — | $110.83 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | — | 32 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | +23.8% | +2.0% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 14 | 37 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | $5.45 | $2.25 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | +12.6% | +6.0% |
Evenly matched — PRS and AFL each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Key Takeaway
AFL leads in 3 of 6 categories (Profitability & Efficiency, Total Returns). PRS leads in 1 (Valuation Metrics). 2 tied.
Best OverallAflac Incorporated (AFL)Leads 3 of 6 categories
Loading custom metrics...
PRS vs AFL: Frequently Asked Questions
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is PRS or AFL a better buy right now?
For growth investors, Aflac Incorporated (AFL) is the stronger pick with -8.
8% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -13. 7% for Prudential Financial, Inc. 5. 62 (PRS). Prudential Financial, Inc. 5. 62 (PRS) offers the better valuation at 2. 3x trailing P/E (1. 6x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Aflac Incorporated (AFL) a "Hold" — based on 32 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 — PRS or AFL?
On trailing P/E, Prudential Financial, Inc.
5. 62 (PRS) is the cheapest at 2. 3x versus Aflac Incorporated at 16. 6x. On forward P/E, Prudential Financial, Inc. 5. 62 is actually cheaper at 1. 6x.
03Which is the better long-term investment — PRS or AFL?
Over the past 5 years, Aflac Incorporated (AFL) delivered a total return of +118.
8%, compared to +6. 9% for Prudential Financial, Inc. 5. 62 (PRS). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: AFL returned +272. 5% versus PRS's +33. 9%. 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 — PRS or AFL?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Aflac Incorporated (AFL) is the lower-risk stock at 0.
19β versus Prudential Financial, Inc. 5. 62's 0. 77β — meaning PRS is approximately 317% more volatile than AFL relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Aflac Incorporated (AFL) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 29% versus 94% for Prudential Financial, Inc. 5. 62 — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — PRS or AFL?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), Aflac Incorporated (AFL) is pulling ahead at -8.
8% versus -13. 7% for Prudential Financial, Inc. 5. 62 (PRS). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Prudential Financial, Inc. 5. 62 grew EPS 33. 2% year-over-year, compared to -29. 1% for Aflac Incorporated. Over a 3-year CAGR, PRS leads at 2. 2% 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 — PRS or AFL?
Aflac Incorporated (AFL) is the more profitable company, earning 20.
9% net margin versus 5. 9% for Prudential Financial, Inc. 5. 62 — meaning it keeps 20. 9% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: AFL leads at 26. 6% versus 7. 9% for PRS. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — PRS 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 PRS or AFL more undervalued right now?
On forward earnings alone, Prudential Financial, Inc.
5. 62 (PRS) trades at 1. 6x forward P/E versus 15. 8x for Aflac Incorporated — 14. 2x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis.
08Which pays a better dividend — PRS or AFL?
All stocks in this comparison pay dividends.
Prudential Financial, Inc. 5. 62 (PRS) offers the highest yield at 23. 8%, versus 2. 0% for Aflac Incorporated (AFL).
09Is PRS or AFL better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, Aflac Incorporated (AFL) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0.
19), 2. 0% yield, +272. 5% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (AFL: +272. 5%, PRS: +33. 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 PRS and AFL?
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.
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 both.
Revenue Growth>
%
(PRS: 15.3% · AFL: -10.9%)Net Margin>
%
(PRS: 5.5% · AFL: 21.0%)P/E Ratio<
x
(PRS: 2.3x · AFL: 16.6x)You Might Also Compare
Based on how these companies actually compete and overlap — not just which sector they're filed under.