Kemper vs Hanover Insurance
KMPR 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 KMPR and THG compare
Hanover Insurance is the larger company, worth 4.2 times as much as Kemper ($8.5B against $2.0B).
Hanover Insurance grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (5.0% versus −8.7% for Kemper).
Hanover Insurance keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 11.0% compared with −9.5% at Kemper.
Both pay dividends: Kemper yields 3.7% and Hanover Insurance 1.5%.
Hanover Insurance scores higher on the StockData Score (14 against 6 for Kemper), 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 | KMPR | THG |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $2.0B | $8.5B |
| Share price | $34.15 | $248.26 |
| Change, 1 year | −7.3% | 36.1% |
| Change, 5 years | −41.1% | 97.0% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.69 | 0.40 |
| Employees | 7,400 | 4,900 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 6 | 14 (better) |
| Valuation score | 2 | 2 |
| Growth score | 0 | 2 (better) |
| Performance score | 0 | 4 (better) |
| Health score | 1 | 3 (better) |
| Dividend score | 3 | 3 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | – | 11.9× |
| P/S | 0.5× (better) | 1.2× |
| P/B | 0.9× (better) | 2.5× |
| EV/EBITDA | – | 7.8× |
| P/FCF | 6.3× (better) | 7.0× |
| PEG | – | 0.15 |
| FCF yield | 15.8% (better) | 14.3% |
| Fair value | – | $216.63 |
| Margin of safety | – | −14.6% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | −8.7% | 5.0% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | −1.7% | 6.4% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −270% | 18.6% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −287% | 20.6% (better) |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | −17.9% | 14.0% (better) |
| Profitability | ||
| Operating margin | – | 15.2% |
| Net margin | −9.5% | 11.0% (better) |
| FCF margin | 7.2% | 17.8% (better) |
| Return on equity | −17.4% | 21.8% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | – | 27.2% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.44 | 0.01 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | – | −0.44 |
| Interest coverage | – | 22.8× |
| Altman Z-score | 0.59 | 1.32 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 5 | 6 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 3.7% (better) | 1.5% |
| Payout ratio | – | 17.8% |
| Years of dividend growth | 1 | – |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 1.3% | – |
| Buyback yield | 2.5% | 3.3% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 6.3% (better) | 4.8% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 96.7% | 93.2% |
| Held by insiders | 1.8% | 1.2% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | $350K (better) | −$18.4M |
| Superinvestors holding | – | 1 |
| Short interest, % of float | – | 2.8% |
Go deeper
- KMPR stock overview
- KMPR income statement
- KMPR 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.