Cincinnati Financial vs Markel
CINF and MKL 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 MKL compare
Cincinnati Financial is the larger company, worth 1.2 times as much as Markel ($27.8B against $23.2B).
On earnings, Cincinnati Financial is cheaper: it trades at 8.5× trailing earnings, against 10.4× for Markel.
Cincinnati Financial grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (19.6% versus 3.5% for Markel).
Cincinnati Financial keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 23.8% compared with 14.7% at Markel.
Cincinnati Financial pays a dividend yielding 2.0%; Markel does not pay one.
Cincinnati Financial scores higher on the StockData Score (17 against 7 for Markel), 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 | MKL |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $27.8B | $23.2B |
| Share price | $181.19 | $1869.82 |
| Change, 1 year | 19.3% | 2.4% |
| Change, 5 years | 43.7% | 42.4% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.56 | 0.56 |
| Employees | 5,705 | 23K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 17 (better) | 7 |
| Valuation score | 3 (better) | 2 |
| Growth score | 3 (better) | 0 |
| Performance score | 5 (better) | 4 |
| Health score | 3 (better) | 1 |
| Dividend score | 3 (better) | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 8.5× (better) | 10.4× |
| P/S | 2.0× | 1.5× (better) |
| P/B | 1.7× | 1.2× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | – | 6.4× |
| P/FCF | 8.2× (better) | 10.9× |
| FCF yield | 12.2% (better) | 9.1% |
| Fair value | $195.80 | $2061.96 |
| Margin of safety | 7.5% | 9.3% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 19.6% (better) | 3.5% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 10.9% (better) | 9.8% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 82.8% (better) | 2.3% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 83.9% (better) | 6.1% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 15.2% | 24.9% (better) |
| Profitability | ||
| Operating margin | – | 19.9% |
| Net margin | 23.8% (better) | 14.7% |
| FCF margin | 24.4% (better) | 13.7% |
| Return on equity | 21.5% (better) | 12.6% |
| Return on invested capital | – | 17.0% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.05 | – |
| Interest coverage | – | 15.2× |
| Altman Z-score | 1.53 (better) | 0.94 |
| Piotroski F-score | 6 (better) | 5 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 2.0% | – |
| Payout ratio | 16.3% | – |
| Years of dividend growth | 7 | – |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 7.7% | – |
| Buyback yield | 2.0% | 2.3% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 4.0% (better) | 2.3% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 72.7% | 79.1% |
| Held by insiders | 1.9% | 1.7% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$976K (better) | −$3.3M |
| Superinvestors holding | – | 4 |
| Short interest, % of float | 2.9% | 2.3% |
Go deeper
- CINF stock overview
- CINF income statement
- CINF valuation and score
- MKL stock overview
- MKL income statement
- MKL valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.