RGA vs MMC

For growth investors, Reinsurance Group of America, Incorporated (RGA) is the stronger pick with 19.

9% revenue growth year-over-year, versus 7. 6% for Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. (MMC). Reinsurance Group of America, Incorporated (RGA) offers the better valuation at 20. 0x trailing P/E (8. 1x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Reinsurance Group of America, Incorporated (RGA) a "Buy" — based on 22 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, Reinsurance Group of America, Incorporated (RGA) is the cheapest at 20.

0x versus Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. at 21. 3x. On forward P/E, Reinsurance Group of America, Incorporated is actually cheaper at 8. 1x.

Over the past 5 years, Reinsurance Group of America, Incorporated (RGA) delivered a total return of +72.

0%, compared to +36. 6% for Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. (MMC). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: MMC returned +210. 8% versus RGA's +154. 2%. 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), Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc.

(MMC) is the lower-risk stock at 0. 14β versus Reinsurance Group of America, Incorporated's 0. 72β — meaning RGA is approximately 425% more volatile than MMC relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Reinsurance Group of America, Incorporated (RGA) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 46% versus 162% for Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.

By revenue growth (latest reported year), Reinsurance Group of America, Incorporated (RGA) is pulling ahead at 19.

9% versus 7. 6% for Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. (MMC). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. grew EPS 8. 6% year-over-year, compared to -20. 2% for Reinsurance Group of America, Incorporated. Over a 3-year CAGR, RGA leads at 11. 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.

Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc.

(MMC) is the more profitable company, earning 16. 6% net margin versus 3. 3% for Reinsurance Group of America, Incorporated — meaning it keeps 16. 6% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: MMC leads at 23. 8% versus 4. 4% for RGA. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — MMC leads at 42. 8%, 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.

On forward earnings alone, Reinsurance Group of America, Incorporated (RGA) trades at 8.

1x forward P/E versus 16. 9x for Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. — 8. 8x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for MMC: 18. 8% to $206. 75.

All stocks in this comparison pay dividends.

Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. (MMC) offers the highest yield at 1. 8%, versus 1. 6% for Reinsurance Group of America, Incorporated (RGA).

For long-horizon retirement investors, Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc.

(MMC) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0. 14), 1. 8% yield, +210. 8% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (MMC: +210. 8%, RGA: +154. 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.

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: RGA is a mid-cap high-growth stock; MMC 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.