Aflac vs CNO Financial
AFL and CNO side by side, both in accident and health insurance and medical. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How AFL and CNO compare
Aflac is the larger company, worth 12 times as much as CNO Financial ($62.1B against $5.3B).
On earnings, Aflac is cheaper: it trades at 13.3× trailing earnings, against 19.8× for CNO Financial.
Aflac grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (13.6% versus 6.0% for CNO Financial).
Aflac keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 26.9% compared with 6.0% at CNO Financial.
Both pay dividends: Aflac yields 1.9% and CNO Financial 1.2%.
Aflac scores higher on the StockData Score (13 against 5 for CNO Financial), which adds up 30 checks on valuation, growth, past performance, financial health and dividends.
Key numbers
A dot marks the better figure where higher or lower is clearly better.
| Metric | AFL | CNO |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $62.1B | $5.3B |
| Share price | $123.89 | $57.67 |
| Change, 1 year | 17.2% | 44.6% |
| Change, 5 years | 118% | 127% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.60 | 0.87 |
| Employees | 6,996 | 3,300 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 13 (better) | 5 |
| Valuation score | 3 (better) | 1 |
| Growth score | 2 (better) | 0 |
| Performance score | 5 (better) | 1 |
| Health score | 0 | 0 |
| Dividend score | 3 | 3 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 13.3× (better) | 19.8× |
| P/S | 3.4× | 1.1× (better) |
| P/B | 2.0× (better) | 2.1× |
| EV/EBITDA | – | 4.3× |
| Fair value | $138.43 | $47.10 |
| Margin of safety | 10.5% (better) | −22.4% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 13.6% (better) | 6.0% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | −5.0% | 3.3% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 99.5% (better) | −8.5% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 112% (better) | −1.4% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 0.45% | 1.7% (better) |
| Profitability | ||
| Operating margin | – | 13.3% |
| Net margin | 26.9% (better) | 6.0% |
| Return on equity | 16.9% (better) | 10.9% |
| Return on invested capital | – | 32.4% |
| Financial health | ||
| Interest coverage | – | 2.9× |
| Altman Z-score | 1.27 (better) | 0.34 |
| Piotroski F-score | 4 | 5 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 1.9% (better) | 1.2% |
| Payout ratio | 24.6% | 23.7% |
| Years of dividend growth | 6 | 13 (better) |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 15.7% (better) | 7.3% |
| Buyback yield | 6.1% (better) | 4.6% |
| Shareholder yield | 8.0% (better) | 5.8% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 68.7% | 95.8% |
| Held by insiders | 0.70% | 3.4% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$226M | −$21.8M (better) |
| Short interest, % of float | 2.3% | 2.9% |
Go deeper
- AFL stock overview
- AFL income statement
- AFL valuation and score
- CNO stock overview
- CNO income statement
- CNO valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.