Insurance - Life
Compare Stocks
5 / 10Stock Comparison
PUK vs MFC vs SLF vs EQH vs PRU
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Insurance - Life
Insurance - Diversified
Insurance - Diversified
Insurance - Life
PUK vs MFC vs SLF vs EQH vs PRU — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Insurance - Life | Insurance - Life | Insurance - Diversified | Insurance - Diversified | Insurance - Life |
| Market Cap | $39.88B | $66.34B | $38.50B | $12.07B | $34.58B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $33.63B | $83.02B | $41.86B | $10.99B | $61.82B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $5.53B | $5.78B | $3.74B | $-1.38B | $3.48B |
| Gross Margin | 62.3% | 30.6% | 31.2% | 59.2% | 30.8% |
| Operating Margin | 59.6% | 8.5% | 11.5% | -10.9% | 8.2% |
| Forward P/E | 13.0x | 8.5x | 12.0x | 6.0x | 7.3x |
| Total Debt | $4.48B | $14.66B | $22.04B | $6.56B | $22.96B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $5.72B | $14.90B | $9.68B | $12.46B | $19.71B |
PUK vs MFC vs SLF vs EQH vs PRU — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | May 20 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prudential plc (PUK) | 100 | 127.1 | +27.1% |
| Manulife Financial … (MFC) | 100 | 318.8 | +218.8% |
| Sun Life Financial … (SLF) | 100 | 202.1 | +102.1% |
| Equitable Holdings,… (EQH) | 100 | 224.4 | +124.4% |
| Prudential Financia… (PRU) | 100 | 163.1 | +63.1% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: PUK vs MFC vs SLF vs EQH vs PRU
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
PUK has the current edge in this matchup, primarily because of its strength in momentum and efficiency.
- +45.8% vs EQH's -13.7%
- 3.1% ROA vs EQH's -0.5%
MFC is the clearest fit if your priority is growth exposure and long-term compounding.
- Rev growth 9.4%, EPS growth 8.1%, 3Y rev CAGR 36.2%
- 247.7% 10Y total return vs SLF's 172.7%
- 9.4% revenue growth vs PRU's -14.0%
SLF is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if valuation efficiency is your priority.
- PEG 1.40 vs MFC's 9.06
- Lower P/E (12.0x vs 13.0x)
- Beta 0.39 vs EQH's 1.40, lower leverage
Among these 5 stocks, EQH doesn't own a clear edge in any measured category.
PRU ranks third and is worth considering specifically for income & stability and sleep-well-at-night.
- 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
- Combined ratio 0.9 vs EQH's 1.1 (lower = better underwriting)
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 9.4% revenue growth vs PRU's -14.0% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (12.0x vs 13.0x) | |
| Quality / Margins | Combined ratio 0.9 vs EQH's 1.1 (lower = better underwriting) | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.39 vs EQH's 1.40, lower leverage | |
| Dividends | 5.5% yield, 8-year raise streak, vs MFC's 4.9% | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +45.8% vs EQH's -13.7% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 3.1% ROA vs EQH's -0.5% |
PUK vs MFC vs SLF vs EQH vs PRU — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
PUK vs MFC vs SLF vs EQH vs PRU — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 5 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
PUK leads in 2 of 6 categories
MFC leads 1 • PRU leads 1 • SLF leads 0 • EQH leads 0 • 2 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
PUK leads this category, winning 3 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
MFC is the larger business by revenue, generating $83.0B annually — 7.6x EQH's $11.0B. PUK is the more profitable business, keeping 16.4% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to EQH's -12.6%. On growth, MFC holds the edge at +2.7% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $33.6B | $83.0B | $41.9B | $11.0B | $61.8B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $11.6B | $6.0B | $5.3B | -$494M | $5.4B |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | $5.5B | $5.8B | $3.7B | -$1.4B | $3.5B |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | $4.7B | $32.1B | $6.8B | $737M | $9.8B |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +62.3% | +30.6% | +31.2% | +59.2% | +30.8% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | +59.6% | +8.5% | +11.5% | -10.9% | +8.2% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | +16.4% | +7.0% | +8.9% | -12.6% | +5.6% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | +14.0% | +38.7% | +16.2% | +6.7% | +15.8% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +110.5% | +2.7% | +172.4% | -9.5% | +6.3% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +20.3% | -4.7% | +2.1% | -74.6% | -12.8% |
Valuation Metrics
Evenly matched — EQH and PRU each lead in 2 of 7 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 9.7x trailing earnings, PRU trades at a 45% valuation discount to MFC's 17.6x P/E. Adjusting for growth (PEG ratio), SLF offers better value at 1.80x vs MFC's 9.06x — a lower PEG means you pay less per unit of expected earnings growth.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $39.9B | $66.3B | $38.5B | $12.1B | $34.6B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $38.2B | $66.2B | $47.6B | $6.2B | $37.8B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | 10.20x | 17.58x | 15.42x | -8.88x | 9.73x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | 13.01x | 8.49x | 11.98x | 5.96x | 7.35x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | 9.06x | 1.80x | — | — |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 7.37x | 11.34x | 12.20x | — | 7.70x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 1.42x | 1.48x | 1.25x | 1.03x | 0.57x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 1.89x | 1.30x | 2.13x | 7.15x | 0.98x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | 18.17x | 2.82x | 3.86x | 17.78x | 5.51x |
Profitability & Efficiency
PUK leads this category, winning 7 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
PUK delivers a 31.0% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $31 in annual profit, vs $-49 for EQH. PUK carries lower financial leverage with a 0.28x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to EQH's 3.67x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), MFC scores 7/9 vs EQH's 5/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | +31.0% | +11.2% | +14.6% | -49.3% | +10.3% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | +3.1% | +0.6% | +1.0% | -0.5% | +0.6% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | +15.5% | +11.5% | +10.2% | — | +10.0% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | +2.2% | +0.7% | +1.2% | -0.5% | +0.9% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 5 | 7 | 7 | 5 | 7 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.28x | 0.28x | 0.87x | 3.67x | 0.65x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | -$1.2B | -$237M | $12.4B | -$5.9B | $3.2B |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $5.7B | $14.9B | $9.7B | $12.5B | $19.7B |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $4.5B | $14.7B | $22.0B | $6.6B | $23.0B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | 78.17x | 5.64x | 10.12x | -4.33x | 4.76x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
MFC leads this category, winning 4 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in MFC five years ago would be worth $21,214 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $7,796 for PUK. Over the past 12 months, PUK leads with a +45.8% total return vs EQH's -13.7%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors MFC at 29.3% vs PUK's 2.9% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | +1.1% | +10.2% | +11.7% | -10.1% | -11.5% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | +45.8% | +30.3% | +19.2% | -13.7% | +3.6% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +8.9% | +116.0% | +57.3% | +94.2% | +39.5% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -22.0% | +112.1% | +48.2% | +35.1% | +17.7% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +19.2% | +247.7% | +172.7% | +140.8% | +89.0% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | +2.9% | +29.3% | +16.3% | +24.8% | +11.7% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — MFC and SLF each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
SLF is the less volatile stock with a 0.39 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than EQH's 1.40 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. MFC currently trades 98.7% from its 52-week high vs EQH's 75.7% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 1.14x | 0.99x | 0.39x | 1.40x | 0.97x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $34.03 | $40.08 | $74.16 | $56.61 | $119.76 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $21.86 | $29.70 | $56.22 | $35.20 | $91.89 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +92.9% | +98.7% | +93.7% | +75.7% | +83.0% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 64.6 | 69.6 | 73.6 | 64.7 | 58.1 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 824K | 1.8M | 554K | 4.0M | 2.3M |
Analyst Outlook
PRU leads this category, winning 2 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: PUK as "Buy", MFC as "Buy", SLF as "Hold", EQH as "Buy", PRU as "Hold". Consensus price targets imply 37.9% upside for EQH (target: $59) vs 4.6% for SLF (target: $73). For income investors, PRU offers the higher dividend yield at 5.54% vs PUK's 1.47%.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Buy | Buy | Hold | Buy | Hold |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | — | $51.00 | $72.70 | $59.14 | $104.13 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 8 | 14 | 15 | 21 | 37 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | +1.5% | +4.9% | +3.8% | +2.5% | +5.5% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 0 | 6 | 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | $0.34 | $2.66 | $3.60 | $1.05 | $5.50 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | +3.2% | +2.7% | +3.2% | +23.4% | +2.9% |
PUK leads in 2 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow, Profitability & Efficiency). MFC leads in 1 (Total Returns). 2 tied.
PUK vs MFC vs SLF vs EQH vs PRU: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is PUK or MFC or SLF or EQH or PRU a better buy right now?
For growth investors, Manulife Financial Corporation (MFC) is the stronger pick with 937.
7% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -14. 0% for Prudential Financial, Inc. (PRU). Prudential Financial, Inc. (PRU) offers the better valuation at 9. 7x trailing P/E (7. 3x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Prudential plc (PUK) a "Buy" — based on 8 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 — PUK or MFC or SLF or EQH or PRU?
On trailing P/E, Prudential Financial, Inc.
(PRU) is the cheapest at 9. 7x versus Manulife Financial Corporation at 17. 6x. On forward P/E, Equitable Holdings, Inc. is actually cheaper at 6. 0x — 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: Sun Life Financial Inc. wins at 1. 40x versus Manulife Financial Corporation's 9. 06x — a reasonable growth-adjusted valuation.
03Which is the better long-term investment — PUK or MFC or SLF or EQH or PRU?
Over the past 5 years, Manulife Financial Corporation (MFC) delivered a total return of +112.
1%, compared to -22. 0% for Prudential plc (PUK). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: MFC returned +247. 7% versus PUK's +19. 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 — PUK or MFC or SLF or EQH or PRU?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Sun Life Financial Inc.
(SLF) is the lower-risk stock at 0. 39β versus Equitable Holdings, Inc. 's 1. 40β — meaning EQH is approximately 260% more volatile than SLF relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Prudential plc (PUK) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 28% versus 4% for Equitable Holdings, Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — PUK or MFC or SLF or EQH or PRU?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), Manulife Financial Corporation (MFC) is pulling ahead at 937.
7% versus -14. 0% for Prudential Financial, Inc. (PRU). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Prudential Financial, Inc. grew EPS 36. 3% year-over-year, compared to -227. 8% for Equitable Holdings, Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, SLF leads at 130. 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.
06Which has better profit margins — PUK or MFC or SLF or EQH or PRU?
Prudential plc (PUK) is the more profitable company, earning 14.
3% net margin versus -11. 8% for Equitable Holdings, Inc. — meaning it keeps 14. 3% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: PUK leads at 17. 8% versus -10. 2% for EQH. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — PUK leads at 100. 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 PUK or MFC or SLF or EQH or PRU 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, Sun Life Financial Inc. (SLF) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 1. 40x versus Manulife Financial Corporation's 9. 06x. A PEG below 1. 5 suggests fair-to-attractive pricing relative to expected growth. On forward earnings alone, Equitable Holdings, Inc. (EQH) trades at 6. 0x forward P/E versus 13. 0x for Prudential plc — 7. 1x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for EQH: 37. 9% to $59. 14.
08Which pays a better dividend — PUK or MFC or SLF or EQH or PRU?
All stocks in this comparison pay dividends.
Prudential Financial, Inc. (PRU) offers the highest yield at 5. 5%, versus 1. 5% for Prudential plc (PUK).
09Is PUK or MFC or SLF or EQH or PRU better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, Sun Life Financial Inc.
(SLF) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0. 39), 3. 8% yield, +172. 7% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (SLF: +172. 7%, EQH: +140. 8%), 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 PUK and MFC and SLF and EQH and PRU?
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: PUK is a mid-cap high-growth stock; MFC is a mid-cap high-growth stock; SLF is a mid-cap high-growth stock; EQH is a mid-cap quality compounder stock; PRU 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.