Arch Capital vs CNA Financial
ACGL and CNA 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 ACGL and CNA compare
Arch Capital is the larger company, worth 2.8 times as much as CNA Financial ($37.4B against $13.1B).
On earnings, Arch Capital is cheaper: it trades at 9.0× trailing earnings, against 12.8× for CNA Financial.
CNA Financial grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (2.1% versus −3.9% for Arch Capital).
Arch Capital keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 23.3% compared with 6.8% at CNA Financial.
CNA Financial pays a dividend yielding 8.0%; Arch Capital does not pay one.
CNA Financial scores higher on the StockData Score (11 against 10 for Arch Capital), 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 | ACGL | CNA |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $37.4B | $13.1B |
| Share price | $109.61 | $48.55 |
| Change, 1 year | 19.4% | 5.6% |
| Change, 5 years | 161% | 11.1% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.40 | 0.40 |
| Employees | 8,000 | 6,600 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 10 | 11 (better) |
| Valuation score | 3 (better) | 2 |
| Growth score | 2 (better) | 1 |
| Performance score | 5 (better) | 2 |
| Health score | 0 | 2 (better) |
| Dividend score | 0 | 4 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 9.0× (better) | 12.8× |
| P/S | 2.0× | 0.9× (better) |
| P/B | 1.6× | 1.3× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | – | 10.5× |
| P/FCF | 6.6× | 6.0× (better) |
| PEG | 0.20 (better) | 0.55 |
| FCF yield | 15.0% | 16.6% (better) |
| Fair value | $114.13 | $47.22 |
| Margin of safety | 4.0% (better) | −2.8% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | −3.9% | 2.1% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 18.6% (better) | 6.8% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 6.9% (better) | 3.3% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 14.5% (better) | 3.6% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 28.4% (better) | 13.1% |
| Profitability | ||
| Net margin | 23.3% (better) | 6.8% |
| FCF margin | 30.0% (better) | 14.4% |
| Return on equity | 18.7% (better) | 9.6% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | – | 0.29 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | – | 1.75 |
| Altman Z-score | 1.09 (better) | 0.56 |
| Piotroski F-score | 5 | 7 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 0.00% | 8.0% (better) |
| Payout ratio | – | 104% |
| Years of dividend growth | 0 | 2 (better) |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | – | 2.0% |
| Buyback yield | 11.2% (better) | 0.27% |
| Shareholder yield | 11.2% (better) | 8.3% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 91.6% | 101% |
| Held by insiders | 5.5% | 0.50% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$28.0M | −$5.4M (better) |
| Short interest, % of float | – | 1.5% |
Go deeper
- ACGL stock overview
- ACGL income statement
- ACGL valuation and score
- CNA stock overview
- CNA income statement
- CNA valuation and score
Other comparisons
- ACGL vs AXS
- ACGL vs EG
- ACGL vs L
- ACGL vs RNR
- ACGL vs WRB
- CINF vs CNA
- CNA vs EG
- CNA vs L
- CNA vs MKL
- CNA vs WRB
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.