Principal Financial vs Unum
PFG and UNM side by side, both in accident and health insurance and medical. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How PFG and UNM compare
Principal Financial is the larger company, worth 1.7 times as much as Unum ($23.9B against $14.4B).
On earnings, Principal Financial is cheaper: it trades at 12.4× trailing earnings, against 21.2× for Unum.
Principal Financial grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (5.2% versus 3.4% for Unum).
Principal Financial keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 11.9% compared with 5.3% at Unum.
Both pay dividends: Principal Financial yields 2.9% and Unum 1.6%.
Principal Financial scores higher on the StockData Score (13 against 11 for Unum), 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 | PFG | UNM |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $23.9B | $14.4B |
| Share price | $111.63 | $91.14 |
| Change, 1 year | 35.4% | 21.7% |
| Change, 5 years | 61.9% | 246% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.98 | 0.58 |
| Employees | 20K | 11K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 13 (better) | 11 |
| Valuation score | 4 (better) | 2 |
| Growth score | 1 | 1 |
| Performance score | 3 (better) | 2 |
| Health score | 2 | 2 |
| Dividend score | 3 | 4 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 12.4× (better) | 21.2× |
| P/S | 1.4× | 1.1× (better) |
| P/B | 2.0× | 1.3× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | – | 17.1× |
| P/FCF | – | 20.8× |
| FCF yield | – | 4.8% |
| Fair value | $129.39 | $84.69 |
| Margin of safety | 13.7% (better) | −7.6% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 5.2% (better) | 3.4% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 1.2% (better) | −0.13% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 25.6% (better) | −53.7% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 31.2% (better) | −48.7% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 0.78% | 1.9% (better) |
| Profitability | ||
| Net margin | 11.9% (better) | 5.3% |
| FCF margin | – | 5.2% |
| Return on equity | 16.8% (better) | 6.4% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.02 (better) | 0.35 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | – | 3.39 |
| Altman Z-score | 0.17 | 0.68 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 5 (better) | 4 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 2.9% (better) | 1.6% |
| Payout ratio | 35.5% | 43.8% |
| Years of dividend growth | 3 | 8 (better) |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | – | 9.1% |
| Buyback yield | 3.8% | 7.7% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 6.7% | 9.3% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 79.8% | 89.7% |
| Held by insiders | 0.76% | 1.3% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$5.4M | −$4.5M (better) |
| Superinvestors holding | – | 1 |
| Short interest, % of float | 3.9% | – |
Go deeper
- PFG stock overview
- PFG income statement
- PFG valuation and score
- UNM stock overview
- UNM income statement
- UNM valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.