Cincinnati Financial vs Berkley W R
CINF 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 CINF and WRB compare
Cincinnati Financial and Berkley W R are about the same size, with market caps of $29.1B and $28.7B.
On earnings, Cincinnati Financial is cheaper: it trades at 11.1× trailing earnings, against 16.4× for Berkley W R.
Cincinnati Financial grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (9.9% versus 1.5% for Berkley W R).
Cincinnati Financial keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 20.1% compared with 12.5% at Berkley W R.
Both pay dividends: Cincinnati Financial yields 1.9% and Berkley W R 2.4%.
Cincinnati Financial scores higher on the StockData Score (14 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 | CINF | WRB |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $29.1B | $28.7B |
| Share price | $189.65 | $77.44 |
| Change, 1 year | 13.6% | 1.0% |
| Change, 5 years | 59.6% | 117% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.55 | 0.29 |
| Employees | 5,705 | 8,804 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 14 (better) | 9 |
| Valuation score | 0 | 0 |
| Growth score | 3 (better) | 1 |
| Performance score | 5 | 6 (better) |
| Health score | 3 (better) | 0 |
| Dividend score | 3 (better) | 2 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 11.1× (better) | 16.4× |
| P/S | 2.2× | 1.9× (better) |
| P/B | 1.8× (better) | 3.0× |
| EV/EBITDA | – | 11.1× |
| P/FCF | 9.5× | – |
| PEG | – | 1.55 |
| FCF yield | 10.6% | – |
| Fair value | $172.99 | $58.49 |
| Margin of safety | −9.6% (better) | −32.4% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 9.9% (better) | 1.5% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 10.9% | 12.7% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 25.5% (better) | −2.3% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 26.9% (better) | −0.63% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 15.2% | 29.0% (better) |
| Profitability | ||
| Net margin | 20.1% (better) | 12.5% |
| FCF margin | 23.2% | – |
| Return on equity | 16.9% | 19.2% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.05 | – |
| Altman Z-score | 1.57 (better) | 1.25 |
| Piotroski F-score | 6 (better) | 5 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 1.9% | 2.4% (better) |
| Payout ratio | 20.7% | 37.9% |
| Years of dividend growth | 7 (better) | 3 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 7.7% | 55.0% (better) |
| Buyback yield | 1.7% | 2.2% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 3.7% | 4.6% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 72.7% | 75.1% |
| Held by insiders | 2.0% | 67.9% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$976K | $705M (better) |
| Superinvestors holding | – | 3 |
| Short interest, % of float | 2.7% | 10.2% |
Go deeper
- CINF stock overview
- CINF income statement
- CINF valuation and score
- WRB stock overview
- WRB income statement
- WRB valuation and score
Other comparisons
- ACGL vs WRB
- AFG vs CINF
- AIG vs CINF
- CINF vs CNA
- CINF vs HIG
- CINF vs MKL
- CINF vs PGR
- CNA vs WRB
- EG vs WRB
- L vs WRB
- MKL vs WRB
- RNR vs WRB
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.