Loews vs Berkley W R
L 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 L and WRB compare
Berkley W R is the larger company, worth 1.2 times as much as Loews ($27.4B against $22.8B).
On earnings, Loews is cheaper: it trades at 13.6× trailing earnings, against 15.2× for Berkley W R.
Berkley W R grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (4.3% versus 3.5% for Loews).
Berkley W R keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 12.9% compared with 9.0% at Loews.
Both pay dividends: Loews yields 0.23% and Berkley W R 2.5%.
Loews scores higher on the StockData Score (12 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 | L | WRB |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $22.8B | $27.4B |
| Share price | $111.32 | $73.86 |
| Change, 1 year | 13.8% | 3.4% |
| Change, 5 years | 94.5% | 106% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.51 | 0.29 |
| Employees | 13K | 8,804 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 12 (better) | 9 |
| Valuation score | 3 (better) | 1 |
| Growth score | 1 | 1 |
| Performance score | 2 | 5 (better) |
| Health score | 2 (better) | 0 |
| Dividend score | 4 (better) | 2 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 13.6× (better) | 15.2× |
| P/S | 1.2× (better) | 1.8× |
| P/B | 1.2× (better) | 2.8× |
| EV/EBITDA | – | 10.0× |
| P/FCF | 12.9× | – |
| PEG | 0.41 (better) | 1.43 |
| FCF yield | 7.8% | – |
| Fair value | $111.51 | $59.76 |
| Margin of safety | 0.17% (better) | −23.6% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 3.5% | 4.3% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 8.0% | 12.7% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 25.1% (better) | 9.5% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 29.7% (better) | 10.9% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | – | 29.0% |
| Profitability | ||
| Net margin | 9.0% | 12.9% (better) |
| FCF margin | 9.4% | – |
| Return on equity | 9.2% | 20.2% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.47 | – |
| Altman Z-score | 0.71 | 1.22 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 7 (better) | 5 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 0.23% | 2.5% (better) |
| Payout ratio | 3.1% | 24.9% |
| Years of dividend growth | 0 | 3 (better) |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 0.00% | 55.0% (better) |
| Buyback yield | 1.5% | 2.3% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 1.7% | 4.9% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 60.5% | 75.1% |
| Held by insiders | 8.9% | 67.9% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$38.3M | $705M (better) |
| Superinvestors holding | 1 | 3 (better) |
| Short interest, % of float | 2.4% | 11.0% |
Go deeper
- L stock overview
- L income statement
- L 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.