Insurance - Property & Casualty
Compare Stocks
5 / 10Stock Comparison
UFCS vs NODK vs ACGL vs KMPR vs ERIE
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Insurance - Property & Casualty
Insurance - Diversified
Insurance - Property & Casualty
Insurance - Brokers
UFCS vs NODK vs ACGL vs KMPR vs ERIE — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Insurance - Property & Casualty | Insurance - Property & Casualty | Insurance - Diversified | Insurance - Property & Casualty | Insurance - Brokers |
| Market Cap | $1.20B | $267M | $33.67B | $1.73B | $10.01B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $1.43B | $298M | $19.93B | $4.71B | $4.33B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $131M | $3M | $4.40B | $39M | $571M |
| Gross Margin | 22.8% | 13.3% | 37.2% | 8.1% | 18.1% |
| Operating Margin | 11.5% | 1.5% | 25.0% | 0.7% | 17.0% |
| Forward P/E | 10.7x | — | 10.1x | 9.7x | 17.1x |
| Total Debt | $146M | $0.00 | $2.73B | $1.00B | $0.00 |
| Cash & Equiv. | $156M | $678K | $993M | $126M | $346M |
UFCS vs NODK vs ACGL vs KMPR vs ERIE — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | May 20 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| United Fire Group, … (UFCS) | 100 | 179.7 | +79.7% |
| NI Holdings, Inc. (NODK) | 100 | 85.5 | -14.5% |
| Arch Capital Group … (ACGL) | 100 | 332.4 | +232.4% |
| Kemper Corporation (KMPR) | 100 | 47.8 | -52.2% |
| Erie Indemnity Comp… (ERIE) | 100 | 119.8 | +19.8% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: UFCS vs NODK vs ACGL vs KMPR vs ERIE
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
UFCS ranks third and is worth considering specifically for momentum.
- +74.0% vs KMPR's -50.2%
Among these 5 stocks, NODK doesn't own a clear edge in any measured category.
ACGL carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for growth exposure and long-term compounding.
- Rev growth 14.3%, EPS growth 3.8%, 3Y rev CAGR 27.3%
- 324.0% 10Y total return vs ERIE's 171.6%
- Lower volatility, beta 0.02, Low D/E 11.3%, current ratio 1.21x
- PEG 0.35 vs ERIE's 1.25
KMPR is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if value and dividends is your priority.
- Lower P/E (9.7x vs 17.1x)
- 4.3% yield, 1-year raise streak, vs ERIE's 2.2%, (1 stock pays no dividend)
ERIE is the clearest fit if your priority is income & stability and defensive.
- Dividend streak 2 yrs, beta 0.16, yield 2.2%
- Beta 0.16, yield 2.2%, current ratio 1.27x
- 17.3% ROA vs KMPR's 0.4%, ROIC 29.5% vs 3.1%
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 14.3% revenue growth vs NODK's -100.0% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (9.7x vs 17.1x) | |
| Quality / Margins | Combined ratio 0.8 vs KMPR's 1.0 (lower = better underwriting) | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.02 vs KMPR's 0.58, lower leverage | |
| Dividends | 4.3% yield, 1-year raise streak, vs ERIE's 2.2%, (1 stock pays no dividend) | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +74.0% vs KMPR's -50.2% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 17.3% ROA vs KMPR's 0.4%, ROIC 29.5% vs 3.1% |
UFCS vs NODK vs ACGL vs KMPR vs ERIE — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
Segment breakdown not available.
UFCS vs NODK vs ACGL vs KMPR vs ERIE — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 5 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
ACGL leads in 1 of 6 categories
KMPR leads 1 • ERIE leads 1 • UFCS leads 1 • NODK leads 0 • 2 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
ACGL leads this category, winning 4 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
ACGL is the larger business by revenue, generating $19.9B annually — 66.9x NODK's $298M. ACGL is the more profitable business, keeping 22.1% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to KMPR's 0.8%. On growth, UFCS holds the edge at +11.6% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $1.4B | $298M | $19.9B | $4.7B | $4.3B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $173M | $5M | $5.2B | $21M | $786M |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | $131M | $3M | $4.4B | $39M | $571M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | $286M | -$7M | $6.1B | $382M | $537M |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +22.8% | +13.3% | +37.2% | +8.1% | +18.1% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | +11.5% | +1.5% | +25.0% | +0.7% | +17.0% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | +9.2% | +0.9% | +22.1% | +0.8% | +13.2% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | +20.1% | -2.4% | +30.7% | +8.1% | +12.4% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +11.6% | -14.0% | +7.3% | -7.0% | +2.3% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +71.6% | +38.5% | +39.0% | -104.9% | +7.9% |
Valuation Metrics
KMPR leads this category, winning 4 of 7 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 8.1x trailing earnings, ACGL trades at a 60% valuation discount to ERIE's 20.4x P/E. Adjusting for growth (PEG ratio), ACGL offers better value at 0.29x vs ERIE's 1.50x — a lower PEG means you pay less per unit of expected earnings growth.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $1.2B | $267M | $33.7B | $1.7B | $10.0B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $1.2B | $266M | $35.4B | $2.6B | $9.7B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | 10.45x | — | 8.13x | 12.83x | 20.41x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | 10.67x | — | 10.05x | 9.73x | 17.05x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | — | 0.29x | — | 1.50x |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 7.47x | — | 6.85x | 11.08x | 12.14x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 0.86x | — | 1.69x | 0.36x | 2.46x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 1.31x | — | 1.47x | 0.69x | 5.00x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | 4.55x | 133.00x | 5.50x | 3.11x | 17.53x |
Profitability & Efficiency
ERIE leads this category, winning 6 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
ERIE delivers a 25.0% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $25 in annual profit, vs $1 for NODK. ACGL carries lower financial leverage with a 0.11x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to KMPR's 0.38x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), UFCS scores 7/9 vs ERIE's 4/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | +14.4% | +1.1% | +19.0% | +1.4% | +25.0% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | +3.4% | +0.5% | +5.9% | +0.4% | +17.3% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | +13.6% | — | +15.4% | +3.1% | +29.5% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | +13.7% | — | +11.6% | +1.3% | +32.0% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 7 | 4 | 7 | 7 | 4 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.16x | — | 0.11x | 0.38x | — |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | -$10M | -$678,000 | $1.7B | $879M | -$346M |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $156M | $678,000 | $993M | $126M | $346M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $146M | $0 | $2.7B | $1.0B | $0 |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | 14.45x | — | 34.86x | 0.59x | — |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
UFCS leads this category, winning 4 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in ACGL five years ago would be worth $24,398 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $4,483 for KMPR. Over the past 12 months, UFCS leads with a +74.0% total return vs KMPR's -50.2%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors UFCS at 21.2% vs KMPR's -10.8% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | +32.1% | -2.6% | +0.7% | -24.9% | -20.9% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | +74.0% | +4.3% | +2.0% | -50.2% | -38.7% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +77.9% | -2.7% | +30.7% | -29.0% | -0.2% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +53.8% | -30.8% | +144.0% | -55.2% | +14.8% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +44.3% | -12.4% | +324.0% | +31.6% | +171.6% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | +21.2% | -0.9% | +9.3% | -10.8% | -0.1% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — UFCS and ACGL each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
ACGL is the less volatile stock with a 0.02 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than KMPR's 0.58 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. UFCS currently trades 99.0% from its 52-week high vs KMPR's 44.4% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 0.53x | 0.53x | -0.01x | 0.58x | 0.13x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $47.27 | $14.70 | $103.39 | $66.13 | $380.67 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $25.79 | $12.01 | $82.45 | $27.74 | $210.06 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +99.0% | +87.9% | +91.4% | +44.4% | +56.9% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 67.4 | 47.5 | 46.3 | 51.1 | 33.6 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 98K | 17K | 1.9M | 813K | 231K |
Analyst Outlook
Evenly matched — KMPR and ERIE each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: UFCS as "Buy", ACGL as "Buy", KMPR as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 29.3% upside for KMPR (target: $38) vs 10.0% for ACGL (target: $104). For income investors, KMPR offers the higher dividend yield at 4.33% vs UFCS's 1.32%.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Buy | — | Buy | Buy | — |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $57.00 | — | $104.00 | $38.00 | — |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 6 | — | 34 | 12 | — |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | +1.3% | — | +0.0% | +4.3% | +2.2% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | $0.62 | — | $0.02 | $1.27 | $4.83 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | +0.1% | 0.0% | +5.6% | +17.5% | 0.0% |
ACGL leads in 1 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow). KMPR leads in 1 (Valuation Metrics). 2 tied.
UFCS vs NODK vs ACGL vs KMPR vs ERIE: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is UFCS or NODK or ACGL or KMPR or ERIE a better buy right now?
For growth investors, Arch Capital Group Ltd.
(ACGL) is the stronger pick with 14. 3% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -100. 0% for NI Holdings, Inc. (NODK). Arch Capital Group Ltd. (ACGL) offers the better valuation at 8. 1x trailing P/E (10. 1x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate United Fire Group, Inc. (UFCS) a "Buy" — based on 6 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 — UFCS or NODK or ACGL or KMPR or ERIE?
On trailing P/E, Arch Capital Group Ltd.
(ACGL) is the cheapest at 8. 1x versus Erie Indemnity Company at 20. 4x. On forward P/E, Kemper Corporation is actually cheaper at 9. 7x — 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: Arch Capital Group Ltd. wins at 0. 35x versus Erie Indemnity Company's 1. 25x — a PEG below 1. 0 traditionally signals the market is underpricing earnings growth.
03Which is the better long-term investment — UFCS or NODK or ACGL or KMPR or ERIE?
Over the past 5 years, Arch Capital Group Ltd.
(ACGL) delivered a total return of +144. 0%, compared to -55. 2% for Kemper Corporation (KMPR). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: ACGL returned +321. 0% versus NODK's -13. 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 — UFCS or NODK or ACGL or KMPR or ERIE?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Arch Capital Group Ltd.
(ACGL) is the lower-risk stock at -0. 01β versus Kemper Corporation's 0. 58β — meaning KMPR is approximately -5182% more volatile than ACGL relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Arch Capital Group Ltd. (ACGL) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 11% versus 38% for Kemper Corporation — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — UFCS or NODK or ACGL or KMPR or ERIE?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), Arch Capital Group Ltd.
(ACGL) is pulling ahead at 14. 3% versus -100. 0% for NI Holdings, Inc. (NODK). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: United Fire Group, Inc. grew EPS 87. 4% year-over-year, compared to -100. 0% for NI Holdings, Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, ACGL leads at 27. 3% 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 — UFCS or NODK or ACGL or KMPR or ERIE?
Arch Capital Group Ltd.
(ACGL) is the more profitable company, earning 22. 1% net margin versus 0. 9% for NI Holdings, Inc. — meaning it keeps 22. 1% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: ACGL leads at 25. 0% versus 1. 5% for NODK. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — UFCS leads at 44. 9%, 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 UFCS or NODK or ACGL or KMPR or ERIE 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, Arch Capital Group Ltd. (ACGL) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 0. 35x versus Erie Indemnity Company's 1. 25x. A PEG below 1. 0 is traditionally considered the threshold for growth-adjusted undervaluation. On forward earnings alone, Kemper Corporation (KMPR) trades at 9. 7x forward P/E versus 17. 1x for Erie Indemnity Company — 7. 3x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for KMPR: 29. 3% to $38. 00.
08Which pays a better dividend — UFCS or NODK or ACGL or KMPR or ERIE?
In this comparison, KMPR (4.
3% yield), ERIE (2. 2% yield), UFCS (1. 3% yield) pay a dividend. NODK, ACGL do not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
09Is UFCS or NODK or ACGL or KMPR or ERIE better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, Erie Indemnity Company (ERIE) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0.
13), 2. 2% yield, +170. 7% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (ERIE: +170. 7%, NODK: -13. 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.
10What are the main differences between UFCS and NODK and ACGL and KMPR and ERIE?
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: UFCS is a small-cap deep-value stock; NODK is a small-cap quality compounder stock; ACGL is a mid-cap deep-value stock; KMPR is a small-cap deep-value stock; ERIE is a mid-cap quality compounder stock. UFCS, KMPR, ERIE pay a dividend while NODK, ACGL do not, making them suitable for different income and tax situations. 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.