CNA Financial vs Markel
CNA 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 CNA and MKL compare
Markel is the larger company, worth 1.8 times as much as CNA Financial ($23.2B against $13.2B).
On earnings, Markel is cheaper: it trades at 10.4× trailing earnings, against 10.7× for CNA Financial.
Markel grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (3.5% versus 3.4% for CNA Financial).
Markel keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 14.7% compared with 8.2% at CNA Financial.
CNA Financial pays a dividend yielding 8.0%; Markel does not pay one.
CNA Financial scores higher on the StockData Score (16 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 | CNA | MKL |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $13.2B | $23.2B |
| Share price | $48.68 | $1869.82 |
| Change, 1 year | 10.5% | 2.4% |
| Change, 5 years | 6.2% | 42.4% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.40 | 0.56 |
| Employees | 6,600 | 23K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 16 (better) | 7 |
| Valuation score | 4 (better) | 2 |
| Growth score | 2 (better) | 0 |
| Performance score | 3 | 4 (better) |
| Health score | 2 (better) | 1 |
| Dividend score | 5 (better) | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 10.7× | 10.4× (better) |
| P/S | 0.9× (better) | 1.5× |
| P/B | 1.2× (better) | 1.2× |
| EV/EBITDA | 8.9× | 6.4× (better) |
| P/FCF | 5.8× (better) | 10.9× |
| PEG | 0.46 | – |
| FCF yield | 17.1% (better) | 9.1% |
| Fair value | $53.50 | $2061.96 |
| Margin of safety | 9.0% | 9.3% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 3.4% | 3.5% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 6.8% | 9.8% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 41.0% (better) | 2.3% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 41.3% (better) | 6.1% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 13.1% | 24.9% (better) |
| Profitability | ||
| Operating margin | – | 19.9% |
| Net margin | 8.2% | 14.7% (better) |
| FCF margin | 14.9% (better) | 13.7% |
| Return on equity | 11.3% | 12.6% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | – | 17.0% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.27 | – |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 1.48 | – |
| Interest coverage | – | 15.2× |
| Altman Z-score | 0.54 | 0.94 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 7 (better) | 5 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 8.0% | – |
| Payout ratio | 85.8% | – |
| Years of dividend growth | 2 | – |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 2.0% | – |
| Buyback yield | 0.27% | 2.3% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 8.3% (better) | 2.3% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 101% | 79.1% |
| Held by insiders | 0.53% | 1.7% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$2.7M (better) | −$3.3M |
| Superinvestors holding | – | 4 |
| Short interest, % of float | 1.4% | 2.3% |
Go deeper
- CNA stock overview
- CNA income statement
- CNA 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.