UVE vs ALL

For growth investors, Universal Insurance Holdings, Inc.

(UVE) is the stronger pick with 4. 9% revenue growth year-over-year, versus 4. 6% for The Allstate Corporation (ALL). The Allstate Corporation (ALL) offers the better valuation at 5. 6x trailing P/E (7. 9x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Universal Insurance Holdings, Inc. (UVE) a "Buy" — based on 4 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, The Allstate Corporation (ALL) is the cheapest at 5.

6x versus Universal Insurance Holdings, Inc. at 6. 4x. On forward P/E, The Allstate Corporation is actually cheaper at 7. 9x. The PEG ratio (P/E divided by earnings growth rate) is the most growth-adjusted single valuation metric: Universal Insurance Holdings, Inc. wins at 0. 15x versus The Allstate Corporation's 0. 46x — a PEG below 1. 0 traditionally signals the market is underpricing earnings growth.

Over the past 5 years, Universal Insurance Holdings, Inc.

(UVE) delivered a total return of +202. 7%, compared to +75. 3% for The Allstate Corporation (ALL). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: ALL returned +258. 7% versus UVE's +165. 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), The Allstate Corporation (ALL) is the lower-risk stock at 0.

12β versus Universal Insurance Holdings, Inc. 's 0. 49β — meaning UVE is approximately 324% more volatile than ALL relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Universal Insurance Holdings, Inc. (UVE) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 18% versus 24% for The Allstate Corporation — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.

By revenue growth (latest reported year), Universal Insurance Holdings, Inc.

(UVE) is pulling ahead at 4. 9% versus 4. 6% for The Allstate Corporation (ALL). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Universal Insurance Holdings, Inc. grew EPS 214. 4% year-over-year, compared to 124. 8% for The Allstate Corporation. Over a 3-year CAGR, ALL leads at 9. 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.

The Allstate Corporation (ALL) is the more profitable company, earning 15.

5% net margin versus 11. 5% for Universal Insurance Holdings, Inc. — meaning it keeps 15. 5% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: ALL leads at 19. 8% versus 15. 2% for UVE. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — UVE 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.

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, Universal Insurance Holdings, Inc. (UVE) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 0. 15x versus The Allstate Corporation's 0. 46x. A PEG below 1. 0 is traditionally considered the threshold for growth-adjusted undervaluation. On forward earnings alone, The Allstate Corporation (ALL) trades at 7. 9x forward P/E versus 9. 3x for Universal Insurance Holdings, Inc. — 1. 4x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for ALL: 14. 4% to $244. 38.

All stocks in this comparison pay dividends.

Universal Insurance Holdings, Inc. (UVE) offers the highest yield at 1. 9%, versus 1. 8% for The Allstate Corporation (ALL).

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

12), 1. 8% yield, +258. 7% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (ALL: +258. 7%, UVE: +165. 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.

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.