Insurance - Reinsurance
Compare Stocks
5 / 10Stock Comparison
RZB vs MET vs PRU vs LNC vs UNM
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Insurance - Life
Insurance - Life
Insurance - Life
Insurance - Life
RZB vs MET vs PRU vs LNC vs UNM — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Insurance - Reinsurance | Insurance - Life | Insurance - Life | Insurance - Life | Insurance - Life |
| Market Cap | $1.69B | $50.91B | $35.06B | $6.85B | $13.06B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $23.70B | $76.94B | $61.82B | $18.88B | $13.30B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $1.18B | $3.62B | $3.48B | $1.73B | $781M |
| Gross Margin | 53.8% | 28.4% | 30.8% | 34.4% | 33.9% |
| Operating Margin | 73.6% | 6.3% | 8.2% | 10.8% | 7.5% |
| Forward P/E | 1.0x | 7.9x | 7.5x | 4.7x | 9.2x |
| Total Debt | $5.71B | $20.18B | $22.96B | $6.43B | $3.90B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $4.17B | $22.03B | $19.71B | $9.50B | $158M |
RZB vs MET vs PRU vs LNC vs UNM — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | May 20 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reinsurance Group o… (RZB) | 100 | 103.2 | +3.2% |
| MetLife, Inc. (MET) | 100 | 216.8 | +116.8% |
| Prudential Financia… (PRU) | 100 | 165.4 | +65.4% |
| Lincoln National Co… (LNC) | 100 | 94.4 | -5.6% |
| Unum Group (UNM) | 100 | 533.9 | +433.9% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: RZB vs MET vs PRU vs LNC vs UNM
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
RZB carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for income & stability and growth exposure.
- Dividend streak 16 yrs, beta 0.04, yield 14.2%
- Rev growth 7.2%, EPS growth 64.9%, 3Y rev CAGR 13.5%
- Lower volatility, beta 0.04, Low D/E 42.1%
- PEG 0.04 vs UNM's 4.78
MET is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if growth is your priority.
- 10.2% revenue growth vs PRU's -14.0%
PRU ranks third and is worth considering specifically for quality.
- Combined ratio 0.9 vs MET's 0.9 (lower = better underwriting)
LNC is the clearest fit if your priority is momentum.
- +12.7% vs PRU's +2.6%
UNM is the clearest fit if your priority is long-term compounding.
- 178.9% 10Y total return vs MET's 152.0%
- 1.6% ROA vs LNC's 0.4%, ROIC 4.7% vs 12.0%
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 10.2% revenue growth vs PRU's -14.0% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (1.0x vs 9.2x), PEG 0.04 vs 4.78 | |
| Quality / Margins | Combined ratio 0.9 vs MET's 0.9 (lower = better underwriting) | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.04 vs LNC's 1.33, lower leverage | |
| Dividends | 14.2% yield, 16-year raise streak, vs UNM's 2.2% | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +12.7% vs PRU's +2.6% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 1.6% ROA vs LNC's 0.4%, ROIC 4.7% vs 12.0% |
RZB vs MET vs PRU vs LNC vs UNM — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
RZB vs MET vs PRU vs LNC vs UNM — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 5 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
RZB leads in 3 of 6 categories
UNM leads 1 • MET leads 0 • PRU leads 0 • LNC leads 0 • 2 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
RZB leads this category, winning 4 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
MET is the larger business by revenue, generating $76.9B annually — 5.8x UNM's $13.3B. Profitability is closely matched — net margins range from 9.1% (LNC) to 4.7% (MET). On growth, RZB holds the edge at +26.6% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $23.7B | $76.9B | $61.8B | $18.9B | $13.3B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $2M | $5.9B | $5.4B | $2.3B | $1.1B |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | $1.2B | $3.6B | $3.5B | $1.7B | $781M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | $4.1B | $16.5B | $9.8B | $105M | $539M |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +53.8% | +28.4% | +30.8% | +34.4% | +33.9% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | +73.6% | +6.3% | +8.2% | +10.8% | +7.5% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | +5.0% | +4.7% | +5.6% | +9.1% | +5.9% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | +17.3% | +21.5% | +15.8% | +0.6% | +4.1% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +26.6% | +4.4% | +6.3% | +12.5% | +9.0% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +2.1% | +35.9% | -12.8% | +80.0% | +33.0% |
Valuation Metrics
RZB leads this category, winning 6 of 7 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 1.4x trailing earnings, RZB trades at a 92% valuation discount to UNM's 18.9x P/E. Adjusting for growth (PEG ratio), RZB offers better value at 0.06x vs UNM's 9.79x — a lower PEG means you pay less per unit of expected earnings growth.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $1.7B | $50.9B | $35.1B | $6.8B | $13.1B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $3.2B | $49.1B | $38.3B | $3.8B | $16.8B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | 1.43x | 16.27x | 9.86x | 6.13x | 18.90x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | 0.96x | 7.94x | 7.50x | 4.66x | 9.23x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | 0.06x | — | — | 0.34x | 9.79x |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 2099.40x | 8.57x | 7.80x | 2.41x | 15.91x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 0.07x | 0.66x | 0.58x | 0.38x | 1.00x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 0.12x | 1.80x | 0.99x | 0.61x | 1.26x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | 0.41x | 2.81x | 5.59x | — | 23.52x |
Profitability & Efficiency
UNM leads this category, winning 4 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
LNC delivers a 16.8% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $17 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 MET's 0.70x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), MET scores 8/9 vs LNC's 3/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | +9.4% | +12.7% | +10.3% | +16.8% | +7.1% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | +0.8% | +0.5% | +0.6% | +0.4% | +1.6% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | +8.3% | +13.1% | +10.0% | +12.0% | +4.7% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | +1.1% | +1.0% | +0.9% | +0.4% | +1.5% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 6 | 8 | 7 | 3 | 5 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.42x | 0.70x | 0.65x | 0.59x | 0.35x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $1.5B | -$1.8B | $3.2B | -$3.1B | $3.7B |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $4.2B | $22.0B | $19.7B | $9.5B | $158M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $5.7B | $20.2B | $23.0B | $6.4B | $3.9B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | 0.00x | 5.51x | 4.76x | 9.47x | 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 $29,159 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $6,450 for LNC. Over the past 12 months, LNC leads with a +12.7% total return vs PRU's +2.6%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors LNC at 24.8% vs RZB's 6.3% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | +2.8% | -2.1% | -10.2% | -18.5% | +5.9% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | +6.8% | +2.8% | +2.6% | +12.7% | +3.1% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +20.1% | +57.6% | +41.2% | +94.3% | +91.7% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +14.1% | +33.2% | +18.1% | -35.5% | +191.6% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +42.2% | +152.0% | +90.8% | +24.1% | +178.9% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | +6.3% | +16.4% | +12.2% | +24.8% | +24.2% |
Risk & Volatility
RZB leads this category, winning 2 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
RZB is the less volatile stock with a 0.04 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than LNC's 1.33 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. RZB currently trades 99.4% from its 52-week high vs LNC's 76.5% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 0.04x | 1.07x | 0.97x | 1.33x | 0.46x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $25.38 | $83.64 | $119.76 | $46.82 | $83.13 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $24.42 | $67.33 | $91.89 | $31.61 | $68.28 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +99.4% | +93.4% | +84.2% | +76.5% | +97.3% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 60.7 | 59.2 | 55.4 | 46.2 | 61.1 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 90K | 3.4M | 2.3M | 2.1M | 1.5M |
Analyst Outlook
Evenly matched — RZB and UNM each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: RZB as "Buy", MET as "Buy", PRU as "Hold", LNC as "Hold", UNM as "Hold". Consensus price targets imply 24.7% upside for MET (target: $97) vs 2.4% for PRU (target: $103). For income investors, RZB offers the higher dividend yield at 14.19% vs UNM's 2.19%.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Buy | Buy | Hold | Hold | Hold |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | — | $97.33 | $103.25 | $43.50 | $98.00 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 18 | 33 | 37 | 28 | 30 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | +14.2% | +2.9% | +5.5% | +4.9% | +2.2% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 16 | 13 | 8 | 0 | 20 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | $3.58 | $2.27 | $5.50 | $1.75 | $1.77 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | +10.3% | +7.6% | +2.9% | 0.0% | +7.7% |
RZB leads in 3 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow, Valuation Metrics). UNM leads in 1 (Profitability & Efficiency). 2 tied.
RZB vs MET vs PRU vs LNC vs UNM: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is RZB or MET or PRU or LNC or UNM a better buy right now?
For growth investors, MetLife, Inc.
(MET) is the stronger pick with 10. 2% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -14. 0% for Prudential Financial, Inc. (PRU). Reinsurance Group of America, Incorporated (RZB) offers the better valuation at 1. 4x trailing P/E (1. 0x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Reinsurance Group of America, Incorporated (RZB) a "Buy" — based on 18 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 — RZB or MET or PRU or LNC or UNM?
On trailing P/E, Reinsurance Group of America, Incorporated (RZB) is the cheapest at 1.
4x versus Unum Group at 18. 9x. On forward P/E, Reinsurance Group of America, Incorporated is actually cheaper at 1. 0x. The PEG ratio (P/E divided by earnings growth rate) is the most growth-adjusted single valuation metric: Reinsurance Group of America, Incorporated wins at 0. 04x versus Unum Group's 4. 78x — a PEG below 1. 0 traditionally signals the market is underpricing earnings growth.
03Which is the better long-term investment — RZB or MET or PRU or LNC or UNM?
Over the past 5 years, Unum Group (UNM) delivered a total return of +191.
6%, compared to -35. 5% for Lincoln National Corporation (LNC). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: UNM returned +178. 9% versus LNC's +24. 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 — RZB or MET or PRU or LNC or UNM?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Reinsurance Group of America, Incorporated (RZB) is the lower-risk stock at 0.
04β versus Lincoln National Corporation's 1. 33β — meaning LNC is approximately 2950% more volatile than RZB relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Unum Group (UNM) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 35% versus 70% for MetLife, Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — RZB or MET or PRU or LNC or UNM?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), MetLife, Inc.
(MET) is pulling ahead at 10. 2% versus -14. 0% for Prudential Financial, Inc. (PRU). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Reinsurance Group of America, Incorporated grew EPS 64. 9% year-over-year, compared to -68. 3% for Lincoln National Corporation. Over a 3-year CAGR, RZB leads at 13. 5% 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 — RZB or MET or PRU or LNC or UNM?
Lincoln National Corporation (LNC) is the more profitable company, earning 6.
5% net margin versus 4. 4% for MetLife, Inc. — meaning it keeps 6. 5% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: PRU leads at 7. 9% versus 6. 0% for MET. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — LNC leads at 57. 3%, 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 RZB or MET or PRU or LNC 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, Reinsurance Group of America, Incorporated (RZB) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 0. 04x versus Unum Group's 4. 78x. A PEG below 1. 0 is traditionally considered the threshold for growth-adjusted undervaluation. On forward earnings alone, Reinsurance Group of America, Incorporated (RZB) trades at 1. 0x forward P/E versus 9. 2x for Unum Group — 8. 3x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for MET: 24. 7% to $97. 33.
08Which pays a better dividend — RZB or MET or PRU or LNC or UNM?
All stocks in this comparison pay dividends.
Reinsurance Group of America, Incorporated (RZB) offers the highest yield at 14. 2%, versus 2. 2% for Unum Group (UNM).
09Is RZB or MET or PRU or LNC or UNM better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, Reinsurance Group of America, Incorporated (RZB) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0.
04), 14. 2% yield). Both have compounded well over 10 years (RZB: +42. 2%, LNC: +24. 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 RZB and MET and PRU and LNC 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: RZB is a small-cap deep-value stock; MET is a mid-cap deep-value stock; PRU is a mid-cap deep-value stock; LNC is a small-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.