Cincinnati Financial vs Hanover Insurance
CINF 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 CINF and THG compare
Cincinnati Financial is the larger company, worth 3.4 times as much as Hanover Insurance ($29.1B against $8.5B).
On earnings, Cincinnati Financial is cheaper: it trades at 11.1× trailing earnings, against 11.9× for Hanover Insurance.
Cincinnati Financial grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (9.9% versus 5.0% for Hanover Insurance).
Cincinnati Financial keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 20.1% compared with 11.0% at Hanover Insurance.
Both pay dividends: Cincinnati Financial yields 1.9% and Hanover Insurance 1.5%.
Key numbers
A dot marks the better figure where higher or lower is clearly better.
| Metric | CINF | THG |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $29.1B | $8.5B |
| Share price | $189.65 | $248.26 |
| Change, 1 year | 13.6% | 36.1% |
| Change, 5 years | 59.6% | 97.0% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.55 | 0.40 |
| Employees | 5,705 | 4,900 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 14 | 14 |
| Valuation score | 0 | 2 (better) |
| Growth score | 3 (better) | 2 |
| Performance score | 5 (better) | 4 |
| Health score | 3 | 3 |
| Dividend score | 3 | 3 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 11.1× (better) | 11.9× |
| P/S | 2.2× | 1.2× (better) |
| P/B | 1.8× (better) | 2.5× |
| EV/EBITDA | – | 7.8× |
| P/FCF | 9.5× | 7.0× (better) |
| PEG | – | 0.15 |
| FCF yield | 10.6% | 14.3% (better) |
| Fair value | $172.99 | $216.63 |
| Margin of safety | −9.6% (better) | −14.6% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 9.9% (better) | 5.0% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 10.9% (better) | 6.4% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 25.5% (better) | 18.6% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 26.9% (better) | 20.6% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 15.2% (better) | 14.0% |
| Profitability | ||
| Operating margin | – | 15.2% |
| Net margin | 20.1% (better) | 11.0% |
| FCF margin | 23.2% (better) | 17.8% |
| Return on equity | 16.9% | 21.8% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | – | 27.2% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.05 | 0.01 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | – | −0.44 |
| Interest coverage | – | 22.8× |
| Altman Z-score | 1.57 (better) | 1.32 |
| Piotroski F-score | 6 | 6 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 1.9% (better) | 1.5% |
| Payout ratio | 20.7% | 17.8% |
| Years of dividend growth | 7 | – |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 7.7% | – |
| Buyback yield | 1.7% | 3.3% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 3.7% | 4.8% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 72.7% | 93.2% |
| Held by insiders | 2.0% | 1.2% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$976K (better) | −$18.4M |
| Superinvestors holding | – | 1 |
| Short interest, % of float | 2.7% | 2.8% |
Go deeper
- CINF stock overview
- CINF income statement
- CINF 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.