Cincinnati Financial vs Loews
CINF and L 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 CINF and L compare
Cincinnati Financial is the larger company, worth 1.3 times as much as Loews ($29.1B against $22.9B).
On earnings, Cincinnati Financial is cheaper: it trades at 11.1× trailing earnings, against 15.5× for Loews.
Cincinnati Financial grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (9.9% versus 2.8% for Loews).
Cincinnati Financial keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 20.1% compared with 7.9% at Loews.
Both pay dividends: Cincinnati Financial yields 1.9% and Loews 0.23%.
Cincinnati Financial scores higher on the StockData Score (14 against 10 for Loews), 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 | CINF | L |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $29.1B | $22.9B |
| Share price | $189.65 | $111.90 |
| Change, 1 year | 13.6% | 7.6% |
| Change, 5 years | 59.6% | 101% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.55 | 0.51 |
| Employees | 5,705 | 13K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 14 (better) | 10 |
| Valuation score | 0 | 2 (better) |
| Growth score | 3 (better) | 1 |
| Performance score | 5 (better) | 1 |
| Health score | 3 (better) | 2 |
| Dividend score | 3 | 4 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 11.1× (better) | 15.5× |
| P/S | 2.2× | 1.2× (better) |
| P/B | 1.8× | 1.2× (better) |
| P/FCF | 9.5× (better) | 13.5× |
| PEG | – | 0.47 |
| FCF yield | 10.6% (better) | 7.4% |
| Fair value | $172.99 | $103.97 |
| Margin of safety | −9.6% | −7.6% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 9.9% (better) | 2.8% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 10.9% (better) | 8.0% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 25.5% (better) | 2.5% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 26.9% (better) | 4.8% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 15.2% | – |
| Profitability | ||
| Net margin | 20.1% (better) | 7.9% |
| FCF margin | 23.2% (better) | 9.0% |
| Return on equity | 16.9% (better) | 8.1% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.05 (better) | 0.49 |
| Altman Z-score | 1.57 (better) | 0.73 |
| Piotroski F-score | 6 | 7 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 1.9% (better) | 0.23% |
| Payout ratio | 20.7% | 3.5% |
| Years of dividend growth | 7 (better) | 0 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 7.7% (better) | 0.00% |
| Buyback yield | 1.7% | 1.9% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 3.7% (better) | 2.1% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 72.7% | 60.5% |
| Held by insiders | 2.0% | 8.9% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$976K (better) | −$66.3M |
| Superinvestors holding | – | 1 |
| Short interest, % of float | 2.7% | 2.1% |
Go deeper
- CINF stock overview
- CINF income statement
- CINF valuation and score
- L stock overview
- L income statement
- L valuation and score
Other comparisons
- ACGL vs L
- AFG vs CINF
- AIG vs CINF
- CINF vs CNA
- CINF vs HIG
- CINF vs MKL
- CINF vs PGR
- CINF vs WRB
- CNA vs L
- L vs WRB
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.