Ategrity Specialty Insurance vs Kingstone Companies
ASIC and KINS side by side, both in fire, marine, and casualty insurance. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How ASIC and KINS compare
Ategrity Specialty Insurance is the larger company, worth 3.6 times as much as Kingstone Companies ($1.2B against $328M).
On earnings, Kingstone Companies is cheaper: it trades at 7.8× trailing earnings, against 12.3× for Ategrity Specialty Insurance.
Ategrity Specialty Insurance grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (29.8% versus 24.5% for Kingstone Companies).
Ategrity Specialty Insurance keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 18.8% compared with 16.8% at Kingstone Companies.
Kingstone Companies pays a dividend yielding 0.97%; Ategrity Specialty Insurance does not pay one.
Kingstone Companies scores higher on the StockData Score (16 against 3 for Ategrity Specialty Insurance), 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 | ASIC | KINS |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $1.2B | $328M |
| Share price | $24.40 | $22.63 |
| Change, 1 year | 33.4% | 50.4% |
| Change, 5 years | 243900% | 357% |
| Beta (5Y) | – | 0.61 |
| Employees | 203 | 113 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 3 | 16 (better) |
| Valuation score | 0 | 2 (better) |
| Growth score | 1 | 3 (better) |
| Performance score | 2 | 5 (better) |
| Health score | 0 | 3 (better) |
| Dividend score | 0 | 3 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 12.3× | 7.8× (better) |
| P/S | 2.2× | 1.3× (better) |
| P/B | 1.8× (better) | 2.4× |
| EV/EBITDA | – | 5.6× |
| P/FCF | 5.7× | 4.2× (better) |
| FCF yield | 17.6% | 24.0% (better) |
| Fair value | $21.58 | $21.53 |
| Margin of safety | −13.1% | −5.1% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 29.8% (better) | 24.5% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | – | 10.3% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 40.5% (better) | 33.6% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 23.8% | 32.1% (better) |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | – | 100% |
| Profitability | ||
| Net margin | 18.8% (better) | 16.8% |
| FCF margin | 39.1% (better) | 31.6% |
| Return on equity | 15.8% | 34.4% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | – | 0.03 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | – | −0.31 |
| Altman Z-score | 1.16 | 1.24 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 6 | 6 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 0.00% | 0.97% (better) |
| Payout ratio | – | 7.2% |
| Years of dividend growth | 0 | 1 (better) |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | – | −11.3% |
| Buyback yield | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| Shareholder yield | 0.00% | 0.97% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 11.4% | 53.6% |
| Held by insiders | 81.4% | 13.3% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | $74.3K | $410K (better) |
| Short interest, % of float | 4.5% | 2.0% |
Go deeper
- ASIC stock overview
- ASIC income statement
- ASIC valuation and score
- KINS stock overview
- KINS income statement
- KINS valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.