Insurance - Reinsurance
Compare Stocks
5 / 10Stock Comparison
RGA vs TRV vs HIG vs RNR vs MMC
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Insurance - Property & Casualty
Insurance - Diversified
Insurance - Reinsurance
Insurance - Brokers
RGA vs TRV vs HIG vs RNR vs MMC — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Insurance - Reinsurance | Insurance - Property & Casualty | Insurance - Diversified | Insurance - Reinsurance | Insurance - Brokers |
| Market Cap | $13.81B | $64.45B | $36.30B | $12.95B | $85.27B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $18.13B | $48.83B | $28.76B | $11.49B | $26.45B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $896M | $6.29B | $4.06B | $3.09B | $4.13B |
| Gross Margin | 17.4% | 36.9% | 35.8% | 44.6% | 42.3% |
| Operating Margin | 6.5% | 16.0% | 13.8% | 35.5% | 23.2% |
| Forward P/E | 8.0x | 10.6x | 10.0x | 7.5x | 16.9x |
| Total Debt | $5.71B | $9.27B | $4.37B | $2.33B | $21.86B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $4.17B | $842M | $133M | $1.73B | $2.40B |
RGA vs TRV vs HIG vs RNR vs MMC — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | May 20 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reinsurance Group o… (RGA) | 100 | 232.1 | +132.1% |
| The Travelers Compa… (TRV) | 100 | 278.6 | +178.6% |
| The Hartford Financ… (HIG) | 100 | 344.7 | +244.7% |
| RenaissanceRe Holdi… (RNR) | 100 | 178.8 | +78.8% |
| Marsh & McLennan Co… (MMC) | 100 | 177.7 | +77.7% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: RGA vs TRV vs HIG vs RNR vs MMC
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
RGA plays a supporting role in this comparison — it may shine differently against other peers.
TRV lags the leaders in this set but could rank higher in a more targeted comparison.
HIG is the clearest fit if your priority is long-term compounding and sleep-well-at-night.
- 232.0% 10Y total return vs TRV's 200.7%
- Lower volatility, beta 0.27, Low D/E 23.0%, current ratio 17.65x
RNR carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for growth exposure and valuation efficiency.
- Rev growth 9.4%, EPS growth 60.8%, 3Y rev CAGR 36.2%
- PEG 0.25 vs MMC's 0.88
- 9.4% revenue growth vs RGA's 3.4%
- Lower P/E (7.5x vs 16.9x), PEG 0.25 vs 0.88
MMC is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if income & stability and defensive is your priority.
- Dividend streak 19 yrs, beta 0.12, yield 1.8%
- Beta 0.12, yield 1.8%, current ratio 1.13x
- Beta 0.12 vs RGA's 0.67
- 1.8% yield, 19-year raise streak, vs TRV's 1.4%
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 9.4% revenue growth vs RGA's 3.4% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (7.5x vs 16.9x), PEG 0.25 vs 0.88 | |
| Quality / Margins | Combined ratio 0.7 vs RGA's 0.9 (lower = better underwriting) | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.12 vs RGA's 0.67 | |
| Dividends | 1.8% yield, 19-year raise streak, vs TRV's 1.4% | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +20.7% vs MMC's -22.2% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 7.0% ROA vs RGA's 0.6%, ROIC 15.2% vs 8.3% |
RGA vs TRV vs HIG vs RNR vs MMC — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
RGA vs TRV vs HIG vs RNR vs MMC — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 5 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
RNR leads in 3 of 6 categories
HIG leads 1 • RGA leads 0 • TRV leads 0 • MMC leads 0 • 2 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
RNR leads this category, winning 5 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
TRV is the larger business by revenue, generating $48.8B annually — 4.2x RNR's $11.5B. RNR is the more profitable business, keeping 26.9% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to RGA's 4.9%. On growth, MMC holds the edge at +11.5% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $18.1B | $48.8B | $28.8B | $11.5B | $26.5B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $1.5B | $8.5B | $4.3B | $4.1B | $7.0B |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | $896M | $6.3B | $4.1B | $3.1B | $4.1B |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | $5.5B | $7.9B | $5.8B | $4.2B | $5.1B |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +17.4% | +36.9% | +35.8% | +44.6% | +42.3% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | +6.5% | +16.0% | +13.8% | +35.5% | +23.2% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | +4.9% | +12.9% | +14.1% | +26.9% | +15.6% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | +30.5% | +16.2% | +20.2% | +36.7% | +19.3% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -99.9% | +3.5% | +6.1% | -36.4% | +11.5% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -100.0% | +23.4% | +40.9% | +100.9% | 0.0% |
Valuation Metrics
RNR leads this category, winning 5 of 7 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 5.3x trailing earnings, RNR trades at a 75% valuation discount to MMC's 21.3x P/E. Adjusting for growth (PEG ratio), RNR offers better value at 0.18x vs MMC's 1.11x — a lower PEG means you pay less per unit of expected earnings growth.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $13.8B | $64.4B | $36.3B | $13.0B | $85.3B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $15.3B | $72.9B | $40.5B | $13.6B | $104.7B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | 11.90x | 10.87x | 9.91x | 5.30x | 21.28x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | 8.03x | 10.64x | 10.03x | 7.48x | 16.89x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | 0.52x | 0.51x | 0.43x | 0.18x | 1.11x |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 9.70x | 8.60x | 7.86x | 3.37x | 15.96x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 0.61x | 1.32x | 1.28x | 1.02x | 3.49x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 1.04x | 2.06x | 1.99x | 0.70x | 6.38x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | 3.38x | — | 6.31x | 3.51x | 21.39x |
Profitability & Efficiency
RNR leads this category, winning 4 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
MMC delivers a 26.9% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $27 in annual profit, vs $7 for RGA. RNR carries lower financial leverage with a 0.12x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to MMC's 1.62x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), HIG scores 9/9 vs MMC's 6/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | +6.9% | +19.1% | +22.0% | +16.6% | +26.9% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | +0.6% | +4.4% | +4.8% | +5.7% | +7.0% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | +8.3% | +15.3% | +16.3% | +16.0% | +15.2% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | +1.1% | +8.6% | +5.7% | +10.7% | +17.8% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 7 | 7 | 9 | 8 | 6 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.42x | 0.28x | 0.23x | 0.12x | 1.62x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $1.5B | $8.4B | $4.2B | $598M | $19.5B |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $4.2B | $842M | $133M | $1.7B | $2.4B |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $5.7B | $9.3B | $4.4B | $2.3B | $21.9B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | 5.09x | 19.34x | 20.73x | 33.28x | 6.66x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
HIG leads this category, winning 4 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in HIG five years ago would be worth $21,413 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $13,663 for MMC. Over the past 12 months, RNR leads with a +20.7% total return vs MMC's -22.2%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors HIG at 25.1% vs MMC's 0.7% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | +4.0% | +4.9% | -3.3% | +10.4% | -3.6% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | +6.0% | +11.7% | +4.7% | +20.7% | -22.2% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +49.1% | +70.1% | +95.9% | +45.4% | +2.0% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +77.5% | +96.6% | +114.1% | +89.4% | +36.6% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +151.9% | +200.7% | +232.0% | +176.4% | +209.8% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | +14.2% | +19.4% | +25.1% | +13.3% | +0.7% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — TRV and RNR each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
RNR is the less volatile stock with a -0.05 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than RGA's 0.67 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. TRV currently trades 95.2% from its 52-week high vs MMC's 73.8% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 0.67x | 0.21x | 0.27x | -0.05x | 0.12x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $229.21 | $313.12 | $144.50 | $318.20 | $235.78 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $165.52 | $249.19 | $119.61 | $231.17 | $170.37 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +91.9% | +95.2% | +91.3% | +94.3% | +73.8% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 56.5 | 46.5 | 39.6 | 44.5 | 37.2 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 307K | 1.3M | 1.4M | 299K | 2.7M |
Analyst Outlook
Evenly matched — TRV and MMC each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: RGA as "Buy", TRV as "Hold", HIG as "Buy", RNR as "Hold", MMC as "Hold". Consensus price targets imply 18.8% upside for MMC (target: $207) vs 3.2% for RNR (target: $310). For income investors, MMC offers the higher dividend yield at 1.75% vs RNR's 0.56%.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Buy | Hold | Buy | Hold | Hold |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $239.40 | $313.00 | $152.00 | $309.89 | $206.75 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 22 | 43 | 42 | 28 | 26 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | +1.7% | +1.4% | +1.6% | +0.6% | +1.8% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 18 | 20 | 15 | 1 | 19 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | $3.60 | $4.30 | $2.07 | $1.67 | $3.05 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | +1.3% | +4.9% | +4.4% | +12.3% | +1.1% |
RNR leads in 3 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow, Valuation Metrics). HIG leads in 1 (Total Returns). 2 tied.
RGA vs TRV vs HIG vs RNR vs MMC: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is RGA or TRV or HIG or RNR or MMC a better buy right now?
For growth investors, RenaissanceRe Holdings Ltd.
(RNR) is the stronger pick with 9. 4% revenue growth year-over-year, versus 3. 4% for Reinsurance Group of America, Incorporated (RGA). RenaissanceRe Holdings Ltd. (RNR) offers the better valuation at 5. 3x trailing P/E (7. 5x 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.
02Which has the better valuation — RGA or TRV or HIG or RNR or MMC?
On trailing P/E, RenaissanceRe Holdings Ltd.
(RNR) is the cheapest at 5. 3x versus Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. at 21. 3x. On forward P/E, RenaissanceRe Holdings Ltd. is actually cheaper at 7. 5x. The PEG ratio (P/E divided by earnings growth rate) is the most growth-adjusted single valuation metric: RenaissanceRe Holdings Ltd. wins at 0. 25x versus Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. 's 0. 88x — a PEG below 1. 0 traditionally signals the market is underpricing earnings growth.
03Which is the better long-term investment — RGA or TRV or HIG or RNR or MMC?
Over the past 5 years, The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc.
(HIG) delivered a total return of +114. 1%, compared to +36. 6% for Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. (MMC). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: HIG returned +232. 0% versus RGA's +151. 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 — RGA or TRV or HIG or RNR or MMC?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), RenaissanceRe Holdings Ltd.
(RNR) is the lower-risk stock at -0. 05β versus Reinsurance Group of America, Incorporated's 0. 67β — meaning RGA is approximately -1413% more volatile than RNR relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, RenaissanceRe Holdings Ltd. (RNR) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 12% versus 162% for Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — RGA or TRV or HIG or RNR or MMC?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), RenaissanceRe Holdings Ltd.
(RNR) is pulling ahead at 9. 4% versus 3. 4% for Reinsurance Group of America, Incorporated (RGA). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Reinsurance Group of America, Incorporated grew EPS 64. 9% year-over-year, compared to 8. 6% for Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, RNR leads at 36. 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 — RGA or TRV or HIG or RNR or MMC?
RenaissanceRe Holdings Ltd.
(RNR) is the more profitable company, earning 21. 0% net margin versus 5. 2% for Reinsurance Group of America, Incorporated — meaning it keeps 21. 0% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: RNR leads at 31. 5% versus 6. 8% for RGA. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — HIG leads at 46. 1%, 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 RGA or TRV or HIG or RNR or MMC 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, RenaissanceRe Holdings Ltd. (RNR) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 0. 25x versus Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. 's 0. 88x. A PEG below 1. 0 is traditionally considered the threshold for growth-adjusted undervaluation. On forward earnings alone, RenaissanceRe Holdings Ltd. (RNR) trades at 7. 5x forward P/E versus 16. 9x for Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. — 9. 4x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for MMC: 18. 8% to $206. 75.
08Which pays a better dividend — RGA or TRV or HIG or RNR or MMC?
All stocks in this comparison pay dividends.
Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. (MMC) offers the highest yield at 1. 8%, versus 0. 6% for RenaissanceRe Holdings Ltd. (RNR).
09Is RGA or TRV or HIG or RNR or MMC better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, RenaissanceRe Holdings Ltd.
(RNR) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β -0. 05), 0. 6% yield, +176. 4% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (RNR: +176. 4%, RGA: +151. 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 RGA and TRV and HIG and RNR and MMC?
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 deep-value stock; TRV is a mid-cap deep-value stock; HIG is a mid-cap deep-value stock; RNR is a mid-cap deep-value 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.
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.