Insurance - Diversified
Compare Stocks
5 / 10Stock Comparison
SLF vs UNM vs MET vs PRU vs LNC
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Insurance - Life
Insurance - Life
Insurance - Life
Insurance - Life
SLF vs UNM vs MET vs PRU vs LNC — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Insurance - Diversified | Insurance - Life | Insurance - Life | Insurance - Life | Insurance - Life |
| Market Cap | $38.50B | $12.97B | $51.39B | $34.58B | $6.87B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $41.86B | $13.30B | $76.94B | $61.82B | $18.88B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $3.74B | $781M | $3.62B | $3.48B | $1.73B |
| Gross Margin | 31.2% | 33.9% | 28.4% | 30.8% | 17.0% |
| Operating Margin | 11.5% | 7.5% | 6.3% | 8.2% | 12.1% |
| Forward P/E | 12.0x | 9.2x | 8.0x | 7.3x | 4.7x |
| Total Debt | $22.04B | $3.90B | $20.18B | $22.96B | $6.43B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $9.68B | $158M | $22.03B | $19.71B | $9.50B |
SLF vs UNM vs MET vs PRU vs LNC — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | May 20 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sun Life Financial … (SLF) | 100 | 202.1 | +102.1% |
| Unum Group (UNM) | 100 | 530.1 | +430.1% |
| MetLife, Inc. (MET) | 100 | 218.9 | +118.9% |
| Prudential Financia… (PRU) | 100 | 163.1 | +63.1% |
| Lincoln National Co… (LNC) | 100 | 94.8 | -5.2% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: SLF vs UNM vs MET vs PRU vs LNC
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
SLF carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for growth exposure.
- Rev growth 22.3%, EPS growth 16.7%, 3Y rev CAGR 130.8%
- 22.3% revenue growth vs PRU's -14.0%
- Beta 0.39 vs LNC's 1.34
- +19.2% vs UNM's +2.0%
UNM ranks third and is worth considering specifically for long-term compounding and sleep-well-at-night.
- 177.2% 10Y total return vs SLF's 172.7%
- Lower volatility, beta 0.48, Low D/E 35.1%
- 1.6% ROA vs LNC's 0.4%, ROIC 4.7% vs 12.0%
Among these 5 stocks, MET doesn't own a clear edge in any measured category.
PRU is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if income & stability and defensive is your priority.
- Dividend streak 8 yrs, beta 0.97, yield 5.5%
- Beta 0.97, yield 5.5%, current ratio 0.61x
- Combined ratio 0.9 vs MET's 0.9 (lower = better underwriting)
- 5.5% yield, 8-year raise streak, vs UNM's 2.2%
LNC is the clearest fit if your priority is valuation efficiency.
- PEG 0.14 vs UNM's 4.76
- Lower P/E (4.7x vs 7.3x)
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 22.3% revenue growth vs PRU's -14.0% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (4.7x vs 7.3x) | |
| Quality / Margins | Combined ratio 0.9 vs MET's 0.9 (lower = better underwriting) | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.39 vs LNC's 1.34 | |
| Dividends | 5.5% yield, 8-year raise streak, vs UNM's 2.2% | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +19.2% vs UNM's +2.0% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 1.6% ROA vs LNC's 0.4%, ROIC 4.7% vs 12.0% |
SLF vs UNM vs MET vs PRU vs LNC — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
SLF vs UNM vs MET vs PRU vs LNC — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 5 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
LNC leads in 1 of 6 categories
UNM leads 1 • SLF leads 0 • MET leads 0 • PRU leads 0 • 4 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
Evenly matched — SLF and LNC each lead in 2 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, SLF holds the edge at +172.4% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $41.9B | $13.3B | $76.9B | $61.8B | $18.9B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $5.3B | $1.1B | $5.9B | $5.4B | $2.4B |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | $3.7B | $781M | $3.6B | $3.5B | $1.7B |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | $6.8B | $539M | $16.5B | $9.8B | $243M |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +31.2% | +33.9% | +28.4% | +30.8% | +17.0% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | +11.5% | +7.5% | +6.3% | +8.2% | +12.1% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | +8.9% | +5.9% | +4.7% | +5.6% | +9.1% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | +16.2% | +4.1% | +21.5% | +15.8% | +1.3% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +172.4% | +9.0% | +4.4% | +6.3% | +12.5% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +2.1% | +33.0% | +35.9% | -12.8% | +100.0% |
Valuation Metrics
LNC leads this category, winning 6 of 7 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 6.2x trailing earnings, LNC trades at a 67% valuation discount to UNM's 18.8x P/E. Adjusting for growth (PEG ratio), LNC offers better value at 0.34x vs UNM's 9.73x — a lower PEG means you pay less per unit of expected earnings growth.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $38.5B | $13.0B | $51.4B | $34.6B | $6.9B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $47.6B | $16.7B | $49.5B | $37.8B | $3.8B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | 15.42x | 18.76x | 16.42x | 9.73x | 6.15x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | 11.98x | 9.18x | 8.05x | 7.35x | 4.67x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | 1.80x | 9.73x | — | — | 0.34x |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 12.20x | 15.82x | 8.66x | 7.70x | 2.43x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 1.25x | 0.99x | 0.67x | 0.57x | 0.38x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 2.13x | 1.25x | 1.81x | 0.98x | 0.61x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | 3.86x | 23.35x | 2.84x | 5.51x | — |
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 SLF's 0.87x. 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 | +14.6% | +7.1% | +12.7% | +10.3% | +16.8% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | +1.0% | +1.6% | +0.5% | +0.6% | +0.4% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | +10.2% | +4.7% | +13.1% | +10.0% | +12.0% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | +1.2% | +1.5% | +1.0% | +0.9% | +0.4% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 7 | 5 | 8 | 7 | 3 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.87x | 0.35x | 0.70x | 0.65x | 0.59x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $12.4B | $3.7B | -$1.8B | $3.2B | -$3.1B |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $9.7B | $158M | $22.0B | $19.7B | $9.5B |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $22.0B | $3.9B | $20.2B | $23.0B | $6.4B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | 10.12x | 5.48x | 5.51x | 4.76x | 15.29x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
Evenly matched — SLF and UNM and LNC each lead in 2 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in UNM five years ago would be worth $29,376 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $6,476 for LNC. Over the past 12 months, SLF leads with a +19.2% total return vs UNM's +2.0%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors LNC at 24.9% vs PRU's 11.7% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | +11.7% | +5.2% | -1.2% | -11.5% | -18.2% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | +19.2% | +2.0% | +4.9% | +3.6% | +11.0% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +57.3% | +90.5% | +58.9% | +39.5% | +95.0% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +48.2% | +193.8% | +32.9% | +17.7% | -35.2% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +172.7% | +177.2% | +153.9% | +89.0% | +24.5% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | +16.3% | +24.0% | +16.7% | +11.7% | +24.9% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — SLF and UNM 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 LNC's 1.34 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. UNM currently trades 96.6% from its 52-week high vs LNC's 76.8% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 0.39x | 0.48x | 1.09x | 0.97x | 1.34x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $74.16 | $83.13 | $83.64 | $119.76 | $46.82 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $56.22 | $68.28 | $67.33 | $91.89 | $31.61 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +93.7% | +96.6% | +94.2% | +83.0% | +76.8% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 73.6 | 61.0 | 67.1 | 58.1 | 58.2 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 554K | 1.5M | 3.5M | 2.3M | 2.1M |
Analyst Outlook
Evenly matched — UNM and PRU each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: SLF as "Hold", UNM as "Hold", MET as "Buy", PRU as "Hold", LNC as "Hold". Consensus price targets imply 22.4% upside for MET (target: $97) vs 4.6% for SLF (target: $73). For income investors, PRU offers the higher dividend yield at 5.54% vs UNM's 2.21%.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Hold | Hold | Buy | Hold | Hold |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $72.70 | $98.00 | $96.50 | $104.13 | $43.50 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 15 | 30 | 33 | 37 | 28 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | +3.8% | +2.2% | +2.9% | +5.5% | +4.9% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 2 | 20 | 13 | 8 | 0 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | $3.60 | $1.77 | $2.27 | $5.50 | $1.75 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | +3.2% | +7.8% | +7.6% | +2.9% | 0.0% |
LNC leads in 1 of 6 categories (Valuation Metrics). UNM leads in 1 (Profitability & Efficiency). 4 tied.
SLF vs UNM vs MET vs PRU vs LNC: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is SLF or UNM or MET or PRU or LNC a better buy right now?
For growth investors, Sun Life Financial Inc.
(SLF) is the stronger pick with 22. 3% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -14. 0% for Prudential Financial, Inc. (PRU). Lincoln National Corporation (LNC) offers the better valuation at 6. 2x trailing P/E (4. 7x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate MetLife, Inc. (MET) a "Buy" — based on 33 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 — SLF or UNM or MET or PRU or LNC?
On trailing P/E, Lincoln National Corporation (LNC) is the cheapest at 6.
2x versus Unum Group at 18. 8x. On forward P/E, Lincoln National Corporation is actually cheaper at 4. 7x. The PEG ratio (P/E divided by earnings growth rate) is the most growth-adjusted single valuation metric: Lincoln National Corporation wins at 0. 14x versus Unum Group's 4. 76x — a PEG below 1. 0 traditionally signals the market is underpricing earnings growth.
03Which is the better long-term investment — SLF or UNM or MET or PRU or LNC?
Over the past 5 years, Unum Group (UNM) delivered a total return of +193.
8%, compared to -35. 2% for Lincoln National Corporation (LNC). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: UNM returned +177. 2% versus LNC's +24. 5%. 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 — SLF or UNM or MET or PRU or LNC?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Sun Life Financial Inc.
(SLF) is the lower-risk stock at 0. 39β versus Lincoln National Corporation's 1. 34β — meaning LNC is approximately 243% more volatile than SLF relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Unum Group (UNM) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 35% versus 87% for Sun Life Financial Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — SLF or UNM or MET or PRU or LNC?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), Sun Life Financial Inc.
(SLF) is pulling ahead at 22. 3% 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 -68. 3% for Lincoln National Corporation. 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 — SLF or UNM or MET or PRU or LNC?
Sun Life Financial Inc.
(SLF) is the more profitable company, earning 8. 9% net margin versus 4. 4% for MetLife, Inc. — meaning it keeps 8. 9% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: SLF leads at 11. 4% versus 6. 0% for MET. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — SLF 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 SLF or UNM or MET or PRU or LNC 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, Lincoln National Corporation (LNC) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 0. 14x versus Unum Group's 4. 76x. A PEG below 1. 0 is traditionally considered the threshold for growth-adjusted undervaluation. On forward earnings alone, Lincoln National Corporation (LNC) trades at 4. 7x forward P/E versus 12. 0x for Sun Life Financial Inc. — 7. 3x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for MET: 22. 4% to $96. 50.
08Which pays a better dividend — SLF or UNM or MET or PRU or LNC?
All stocks in this comparison pay dividends.
Prudential Financial, Inc. (PRU) offers the highest yield at 5. 5%, versus 2. 2% for Unum Group (UNM).
09Is SLF or UNM or MET or PRU or LNC 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%, LNC: +24. 5%), 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 SLF and UNM and MET and PRU and LNC?
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: SLF is a mid-cap high-growth stock; UNM is a mid-cap quality compounder 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. 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.