Essent vs MGIC Investment
ESNT and MTG side by side, both in insurance carriers. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How ESNT and MTG compare
Essent and MGIC Investment are about the same size, with market caps of $6.0B and $5.8B.
On earnings, MGIC Investment is cheaper: it trades at 8.9× trailing earnings, against 9.3× for Essent.
Essent grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (4.3% versus −1.9% for MGIC Investment).
MGIC Investment keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 59.2% compared with 51.5% at Essent.
Both pay dividends: Essent yields 1.6% and MGIC Investment 2.2%.
Essent scores higher on the StockData Score (10 against 9 for MGIC Investment), 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 | ESNT | MTG |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $6.0B | $5.8B |
| Share price | $67.02 | $28.41 |
| Change, 1 year | 12.3% | 7.8% |
| Change, 5 years | 39.1% | 80.2% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.75 | 0.71 |
| Employees | 514 | – |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 10 (better) | 9 |
| Valuation score | 3 | 3 |
| Growth score | 0 | 0 |
| Performance score | 3 | 3 |
| Health score | 0 | 0 |
| Dividend score | 4 (better) | 3 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 9.3× | 8.9× (better) |
| P/S | 4.6× (better) | 4.9× |
| P/B | 1.1× (better) | 1.2× |
| EV/EBITDA | 6.9× | 6.1× (better) |
| P/FCF | 7.3× (better) | 8.2× |
| PEG | – | 2.21 |
| FCF yield | 13.7% (better) | 12.1% |
| Fair value | $75.03 | $31.26 |
| Margin of safety | 10.7% (better) | 9.1% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 4.3% (better) | −1.9% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 5.7% (better) | 0.24% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −4.8% (better) | −7.2% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 4.7% | 4.9% (better) |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 12.2% | 19.5% (better) |
| Profitability | ||
| Net margin | 51.5% | 59.2% (better) |
| FCF margin | 62.4% (better) | 59.1% |
| Return on equity | 12.0% | 13.9% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Altman Z-score | 3.07 | 3.17 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 5 | 6 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 1.6% | 2.2% (better) |
| Payout ratio | 18.2% | 19.0% |
| Years of dividend growth | 6 | – |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 14.1% | – |
| Buyback yield | 10.1% | 12.9% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 11.7% | 15.1% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 96.7% | 99.8% |
| Held by insiders | 3.7% | 1.4% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$16.8M (better) | −$22.3M |
| Short interest, % of float | 3.9% | 5.1% |
Go deeper
- ESNT stock overview
- ESNT income statement
- ESNT valuation and score
- MTG stock overview
- MTG income statement
- MTG valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.