Cincinnati Financial vs Loews
CINF and L 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 CINF and L compare
Cincinnati Financial is the larger company, worth 1.2 times as much as Loews ($27.8B against $22.8B).
On earnings, Cincinnati Financial is cheaper: it trades at 8.5× trailing earnings, against 13.6× for Loews.
Cincinnati Financial grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (19.6% versus 3.5% for Loews).
Cincinnati Financial keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 23.8% compared with 9.0% at Loews.
Both pay dividends: Cincinnati Financial yields 2.0% and Loews 0.23%.
Cincinnati Financial scores higher on the StockData Score (17 against 12 for Loews), 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 | CINF | L |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $27.8B | $22.8B |
| Share price | $181.19 | $111.32 |
| Change, 1 year | 19.3% | 13.8% |
| Change, 5 years | 43.7% | 94.5% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.56 | 0.51 |
| Employees | 5,705 | 13K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 17 (better) | 12 |
| Valuation score | 3 | 3 |
| Growth score | 3 (better) | 1 |
| Performance score | 5 (better) | 2 |
| Health score | 3 (better) | 2 |
| Dividend score | 3 | 4 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 8.5× (better) | 13.6× |
| P/S | 2.0× | 1.2× (better) |
| P/B | 1.7× | 1.2× (better) |
| P/FCF | 8.2× (better) | 12.9× |
| PEG | – | 0.41 |
| FCF yield | 12.2% (better) | 7.8% |
| Fair value | $195.80 | $111.51 |
| Margin of safety | 7.5% (better) | 0.17% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 19.6% (better) | 3.5% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 10.9% (better) | 8.0% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 82.8% (better) | 25.1% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 83.9% (better) | 29.7% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 15.2% | – |
| Profitability | ||
| Net margin | 23.8% (better) | 9.0% |
| FCF margin | 24.4% (better) | 9.4% |
| Return on equity | 21.5% (better) | 9.2% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.05 (better) | 0.47 |
| Altman Z-score | 1.53 (better) | 0.71 |
| Piotroski F-score | 6 | 7 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 2.0% (better) | 0.23% |
| Payout ratio | 16.3% | 3.1% |
| Years of dividend growth | 7 (better) | 0 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 7.7% (better) | 0.00% |
| Buyback yield | 2.0% (better) | 1.5% |
| Shareholder yield | 4.0% (better) | 1.7% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 72.7% | 60.5% |
| Held by insiders | 1.9% | 8.9% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$976K (better) | −$38.3M |
| Superinvestors holding | – | 1 |
| Short interest, % of float | 2.9% | 2.4% |
Go deeper
- CINF stock overview
- CINF income statement
- CINF valuation and score
- L stock overview
- L income statement
- L valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.