Cincinnati Financial vs Berkley W R
CINF and WRB 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 WRB compare
Cincinnati Financial and Berkley W R are about the same size, with market caps of $27.8B and $27.4B.
On earnings, Cincinnati Financial is cheaper: it trades at 8.5× trailing earnings, against 15.2× for Berkley W R.
Cincinnati Financial grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (19.6% versus 4.3% for Berkley W R).
Cincinnati Financial keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 23.8% compared with 12.9% at Berkley W R.
Both pay dividends: Cincinnati Financial yields 2.0% and Berkley W R 2.5%.
Cincinnati Financial scores higher on the StockData Score (17 against 9 for Berkley W R), 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 | WRB |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $27.8B | $27.4B |
| Share price | $181.19 | $73.86 |
| Change, 1 year | 19.3% | 3.4% |
| Change, 5 years | 43.7% | 106% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.56 | 0.29 |
| Employees | 5,705 | 8,804 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 17 (better) | 9 |
| Valuation score | 3 (better) | 1 |
| Growth score | 3 (better) | 1 |
| Performance score | 5 | 5 |
| Health score | 3 (better) | 0 |
| Dividend score | 3 (better) | 2 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 8.5× (better) | 15.2× |
| P/S | 2.0× | 1.8× (better) |
| P/B | 1.7× (better) | 2.8× |
| EV/EBITDA | – | 10.0× |
| P/FCF | 8.2× | – |
| PEG | – | 1.43 |
| FCF yield | 12.2% | – |
| Fair value | $195.80 | $59.76 |
| Margin of safety | 7.5% (better) | −23.6% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 19.6% (better) | 4.3% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 10.9% | 12.7% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 82.8% (better) | 9.5% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 83.9% (better) | 10.9% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 15.2% | 29.0% (better) |
| Profitability | ||
| Net margin | 23.8% (better) | 12.9% |
| FCF margin | 24.4% | – |
| Return on equity | 21.5% (better) | 20.2% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.05 | – |
| Altman Z-score | 1.53 (better) | 1.22 |
| Piotroski F-score | 6 (better) | 5 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 2.0% | 2.5% (better) |
| Payout ratio | 16.3% | 24.9% |
| Years of dividend growth | 7 (better) | 3 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 7.7% | 55.0% (better) |
| Buyback yield | 2.0% | 2.3% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 4.0% | 4.9% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 72.7% | 75.1% |
| Held by insiders | 1.9% | 67.9% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$976K | $705M (better) |
| Superinvestors holding | – | 3 |
| Short interest, % of float | 2.9% | 11.0% |
Go deeper
- CINF stock overview
- CINF income statement
- CINF valuation and score
- WRB stock overview
- WRB income statement
- WRB valuation and score
Other comparisons
- ACGL vs WRB
- AFG vs CINF
- AIG vs CINF
- CINF vs CNA
- CINF vs HIG
- CINF vs MKL
- CINF vs PGR
- CNA vs WRB
- EG vs WRB
- L vs WRB
- MKL vs WRB
- RNR vs WRB
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.