Kingstone Companies vs Safety Insurance
KINS and SAFT 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 KINS and SAFT compare
Safety Insurance is the larger company, worth 4.7 times as much as Kingstone Companies ($1.5B against $328M).
On earnings, Kingstone Companies is cheaper: it trades at 7.8× trailing earnings, against 21.9× for Safety Insurance.
Kingstone Companies grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (24.5% versus 4.6% for Safety Insurance).
Kingstone Companies keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 16.8% compared with 5.5% at Safety Insurance.
Both pay dividends: Kingstone Companies yields 0.97% and Safety Insurance 3.5%.
Kingstone Companies scores higher on the StockData Score (16 against 8 for Safety Insurance), 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 | KINS | SAFT |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $328M | $1.5B |
| Share price | $22.63 | $104.47 |
| Change, 1 year | 50.4% | 36.1% |
| Change, 5 years | 357% | 34.4% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.61 | 0.33 |
| Employees | 113 | 568 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 16 (better) | 8 |
| Valuation score | 2 (better) | 1 |
| Growth score | 3 (better) | 2 |
| Performance score | 5 (better) | 1 |
| Health score | 3 (better) | 0 |
| Dividend score | 3 | 4 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 7.8× (better) | 21.9× |
| P/S | 1.3× | 1.2× (better) |
| P/B | 2.4× | 1.8× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 5.6× (better) | 15.3× |
| P/FCF | 4.2× (better) | 10.4× |
| PEG | – | 0.76 |
| FCF yield | 24.0% (better) | 9.6% |
| Fair value | $21.53 | $77.46 |
| Margin of safety | −5.1% (better) | −34.9% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 24.5% (better) | 4.6% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 10.3% (better) | 8.4% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 33.6% (better) | −19.4% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 32.1% (better) | −18.8% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 100% (better) | −6.1% |
| Profitability | ||
| Net margin | 16.8% (better) | 5.5% |
| FCF margin | 31.6% (better) | 11.4% |
| Return on equity | 34.4% (better) | 8.0% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.03 | – |
| Net debt / EBITDA | −0.31 | – |
| Altman Z-score | 1.24 | 1.54 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 6 | 6 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 0.97% | 3.5% (better) |
| Payout ratio | 7.2% | 76.5% |
| Years of dividend growth | 1 | 1 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | −11.3% | 0.22% (better) |
| Buyback yield | 0.00% | – |
| Shareholder yield | 0.97% | 3.5% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 53.6% | 84.4% |
| Held by insiders | 13.3% | 12.5% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | $410K (better) | −$139M |
| Short interest, % of float | 2.0% | 3.0% |
Go deeper
- KINS stock overview
- KINS income statement
- KINS valuation and score
- SAFT stock overview
- SAFT income statement
- SAFT valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.