CNA Financial vs Berkley W R
CNA 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 CNA and WRB compare
Berkley W R is the larger company, worth 2.1 times as much as CNA Financial ($27.4B against $13.2B).
On earnings, CNA Financial is cheaper: it trades at 10.7× trailing earnings, against 15.2× for Berkley W R.
Berkley W R grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (4.3% versus 3.4% for CNA Financial).
Berkley W R keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 12.9% compared with 8.2% at CNA Financial.
Both pay dividends: CNA Financial yields 8.0% and Berkley W R 2.5%.
CNA Financial scores higher on the StockData Score (16 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 | CNA | WRB |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $13.2B | $27.4B |
| Share price | $48.68 | $73.86 |
| Change, 1 year | 10.5% | 3.4% |
| Change, 5 years | 6.2% | 106% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.40 | 0.29 |
| Employees | 6,600 | 8,804 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 16 (better) | 9 |
| Valuation score | 4 (better) | 1 |
| Growth score | 2 (better) | 1 |
| Performance score | 3 | 5 (better) |
| Health score | 2 (better) | 0 |
| Dividend score | 5 (better) | 2 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 10.7× (better) | 15.2× |
| P/S | 0.9× (better) | 1.8× |
| P/B | 1.2× (better) | 2.8× |
| EV/EBITDA | 8.9× (better) | 10.0× |
| P/FCF | 5.8× | – |
| PEG | 0.46 (better) | 1.43 |
| FCF yield | 17.1% | – |
| Fair value | $53.50 | $59.76 |
| Margin of safety | 9.0% (better) | −23.6% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 3.4% | 4.3% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 6.8% | 12.7% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 41.0% (better) | 9.5% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 41.3% (better) | 10.9% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 13.1% | 29.0% (better) |
| Profitability | ||
| Net margin | 8.2% | 12.9% (better) |
| FCF margin | 14.9% | – |
| Return on equity | 11.3% | 20.2% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.27 | – |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 1.48 | – |
| Altman Z-score | 0.54 | 1.22 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 7 (better) | 5 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 8.0% (better) | 2.5% |
| Payout ratio | 85.8% | 24.9% |
| Years of dividend growth | 2 | 3 (better) |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 2.0% | 55.0% (better) |
| Buyback yield | 0.27% | 2.3% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 8.3% (better) | 4.9% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 101% | 75.1% |
| Held by insiders | 0.53% | 67.9% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$2.7M | $705M (better) |
| Superinvestors holding | – | 3 |
| Short interest, % of float | 1.4% | 11.0% |
Go deeper
- CNA stock overview
- CNA income statement
- CNA valuation and score
- WRB stock overview
- WRB income statement
- WRB valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.