Cincinnati Financial vs Hanover Insurance
CINF and THG 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 THG compare
Cincinnati Financial is the larger company, worth 3.3 times as much as Hanover Insurance ($27.8B against $8.4B).
On earnings, Cincinnati Financial is cheaper: it trades at 8.5× trailing earnings, against 11.6× for Hanover Insurance.
Cincinnati Financial grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (19.6% versus 5.6% for Hanover Insurance).
Cincinnati Financial keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 23.8% compared with 11.2% at Hanover Insurance.
Both pay dividends: Cincinnati Financial yields 2.0% and Hanover Insurance 1.6%.
Cincinnati Financial scores higher on the StockData Score (17 against 13 for Hanover 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 | CINF | THG |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $27.8B | $8.4B |
| Share price | $181.19 | $242.09 |
| Change, 1 year | 19.3% | 43.8% |
| Change, 5 years | 43.7% | 92.6% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.56 | 0.40 |
| Employees | 5,705 | 4,900 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 17 (better) | 13 |
| Valuation score | 3 (better) | 1 |
| Growth score | 3 (better) | 2 |
| Performance score | 5 (better) | 4 |
| Health score | 3 | 3 |
| Dividend score | 3 | 3 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 8.5× (better) | 11.6× |
| P/S | 2.0× | 1.2× (better) |
| P/B | 1.7× (better) | 2.3× |
| EV/EBITDA | – | 7.9× |
| P/FCF | 8.2× | 6.7× (better) |
| PEG | – | 0.15 |
| FCF yield | 12.2% | 14.9% (better) |
| Fair value | $195.80 | $220.44 |
| Margin of safety | 7.5% (better) | −9.8% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 19.6% (better) | 5.6% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 10.9% (better) | 6.4% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 82.8% (better) | 36.1% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 83.9% (better) | 37.5% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 15.2% (better) | 14.0% |
| Profitability | ||
| Operating margin | – | 15.4% |
| Net margin | 23.8% (better) | 11.2% |
| FCF margin | 24.4% (better) | 18.5% |
| Return on equity | 21.5% | 21.9% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | – | 23.6% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.05 | 0.01 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | – | −0.21 |
| Interest coverage | – | 22.1× |
| Altman Z-score | 1.53 (better) | 1.32 |
| Piotroski F-score | 6 | 6 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 2.0% (better) | 1.6% |
| Payout ratio | 16.3% | 17.5% |
| Years of dividend growth | 7 | – |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 7.7% | – |
| Buyback yield | 2.0% | 2.8% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 4.0% | 4.3% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 72.7% | 92.0% |
| Held by insiders | 1.9% | 1.2% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$976K (better) | −$16.2M |
| Superinvestors holding | – | 1 |
| Short interest, % of float | 2.9% | 3.0% |
Go deeper
- CINF stock overview
- CINF income statement
- CINF valuation and score
- THG stock overview
- THG income statement
- THG valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.