Horace Mann Educators vs Hanover Insurance
HMN 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 HMN and THG compare
Hanover Insurance is the larger company, worth 4.5 times as much as Horace Mann Educators ($8.4B against $1.9B).
On earnings, Horace Mann Educators is cheaper: it trades at 10.9× trailing earnings, against 11.6× for Hanover Insurance.
Horace Mann Educators grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (5.9% versus 5.6% for Hanover Insurance).
Hanover Insurance keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 11.2% compared with 10.2% at Horace Mann Educators.
Both pay dividends: Horace Mann Educators yields 3.1% and Hanover Insurance 1.6%.
Hanover Insurance scores higher on the StockData Score (13 against 12 for Horace Mann Educators), 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 | HMN | THG |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $1.9B | $8.4B |
| Share price | $46.72 | $242.09 |
| Change, 1 year | 5.4% | 43.8% |
| Change, 5 years | 14.9% | 92.6% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.35 | 0.40 |
| Employees | 1,800 | 4,900 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 12 | 13 (better) |
| Valuation score | 4 (better) | 1 |
| Growth score | 2 | 2 |
| Performance score | 3 | 4 (better) |
| Health score | 0 | 3 (better) |
| Dividend score | 3 | 3 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 10.9× (better) | 11.6× |
| P/S | 1.1× (better) | 1.2× |
| P/B | 1.3× (better) | 2.3× |
| EV/EBITDA | 6.6× (better) | 7.9× |
| P/FCF | – | 6.7× |
| PEG | 0.11 (better) | 0.15 |
| FCF yield | – | 14.9% |
| Fair value | $54.46 | $220.44 |
| Margin of safety | 14.2% (better) | −9.8% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 5.9% (better) | 5.6% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 5.4% | 6.4% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 26.6% | 36.1% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 26.6% | 37.5% (better) |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 4.2% | 14.0% (better) |
| Profitability | ||
| Operating margin | – | 15.4% |
| Net margin | 10.2% | 11.2% (better) |
| FCF margin | – | 18.5% |
| Return on equity | 12.4% | 21.9% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | – | 23.6% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | – | 0.01 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | – | −0.21 |
| Interest coverage | – | 22.1× |
| Altman Z-score | 0.35 | 1.32 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 6 | 6 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 3.1% (better) | 1.6% |
| Payout ratio | 32.5% | 17.5% |
| Years of dividend growth | 16 | – |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 3.1% | – |
| Buyback yield | 1.7% | 2.8% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 4.7% (better) | 4.3% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 105% | 92.0% |
| Held by insiders | 1.6% | 1.2% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$3.7M (better) | −$16.2M |
| Superinvestors holding | – | 1 |
| Short interest, % of float | 2.6% | 3.0% |
Go deeper
- HMN stock overview
- HMN income statement
- HMN 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.