UNM vs MET

For growth investors, MetLife, Inc.

(MET) is the stronger pick with 10. 2% revenue growth year-over-year, versus 2. 1% for Unum Group (UNM). MetLife, Inc. (MET) offers the better valuation at 16. 7x trailing P/E (8. 2x 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.

On trailing P/E, MetLife, Inc.

(MET) is the cheapest at 16. 7x versus Unum Group at 18. 8x. On forward P/E, MetLife, Inc. is actually cheaper at 8. 2x.

Over the past 5 years, Unum Group (UNM) delivered a total return of +192.

1%, compared to +35. 3% for MetLife, Inc. (MET). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: UNM returned +175. 7% versus MET's +156. 8%. 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), Unum Group (UNM) is the lower-risk stock at 0.

48β versus MetLife, Inc. 's 1. 09β — meaning MET is approximately 128% more volatile than UNM 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.

By revenue growth (latest reported year), MetLife, Inc.

(MET) is pulling ahead at 10. 2% versus 2. 1% for Unum Group (UNM). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: MetLife, Inc. grew EPS -19. 2% year-over-year, compared to -54. 8% for Unum Group. Over a 3-year CAGR, MET leads at 4. 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.

Unum Group (UNM) is the more profitable company, earning 5.

7% net margin versus 4. 4% for MetLife, Inc. — meaning it keeps 5. 7% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: UNM leads at 7. 2% versus 6. 0% for MET. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — UNM leads at 38. 2%, 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, MetLife, Inc.

(MET) trades at 8. 2x forward P/E versus 9. 2x for Unum Group — 1. 0x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for UNM: 22. 1% to $98. 00.

All stocks in this comparison pay dividends.

MetLife, Inc. (MET) offers the highest yield at 2. 8%, versus 2. 2% for Unum Group (UNM).

For long-horizon retirement investors, Unum Group (UNM) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0.

48), 2. 2% yield, +175. 7% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (UNM: +175. 7%, MET: +156. 8%), 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: UNM is a mid-cap quality compounder stock; MET is a mid-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.