CNA Financial vs Markel
CNA and MKL 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 CNA and MKL compare
Markel is the larger company, worth 1.8 times as much as CNA Financial ($24.2B against $13.1B).
On earnings, CNA Financial is cheaper: it trades at 12.8× trailing earnings, against 14.3× for Markel.
Markel grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (3.3% versus 2.1% for CNA Financial).
Markel keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 11.4% compared with 6.8% at CNA Financial.
CNA Financial pays a dividend yielding 8.0%; Markel does not pay one.
CNA Financial scores higher on the StockData Score (11 against 4 for Markel), 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 | CNA | MKL |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $13.1B | $24.2B |
| Share price | $48.55 | $1977.29 |
| Change, 1 year | 5.6% | −5.5% |
| Change, 5 years | 11.1% | 59.3% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.40 | 0.55 |
| Employees | 6,600 | 23K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 11 (better) | 4 |
| Valuation score | 2 (better) | 1 |
| Growth score | 1 (better) | 0 |
| Performance score | 2 | 2 |
| Health score | 2 (better) | 1 |
| Dividend score | 4 (better) | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 12.8× (better) | 14.3× |
| P/S | 0.9× (better) | 1.5× |
| P/B | 1.3× (better) | 1.3× |
| EV/EBITDA | 10.5× | 8.3× (better) |
| P/FCF | 6.0× (better) | 13.4× |
| PEG | 0.55 | – |
| FCF yield | 16.6% (better) | 7.5% |
| Fair value | $47.22 | $1846.91 |
| Margin of safety | −2.8% (better) | −7.1% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 2.1% | 3.3% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 6.8% | 9.8% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 3.3% (better) | −13.8% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 3.6% (better) | −14.6% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 13.1% | 24.9% (better) |
| Profitability | ||
| Operating margin | – | 15.7% |
| Net margin | 6.8% | 11.4% (better) |
| FCF margin | 14.4% (better) | 11.5% |
| Return on equity | 9.6% | 9.8% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | – | 13.7% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.29 | – |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 1.75 | – |
| Interest coverage | – | 12.1× |
| Altman Z-score | 0.56 | 0.91 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 7 (better) | 5 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 8.0% | – |
| Payout ratio | 104% | – |
| Years of dividend growth | 2 | – |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 2.0% | – |
| Buyback yield | 0.27% | 3.2% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 8.3% (better) | 3.2% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 101% | 80.2% |
| Held by insiders | 0.50% | 1.7% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$5.4M | −$2.8M (better) |
| Superinvestors holding | – | 4 |
| Short interest, % of float | 1.5% | 2.1% |
Go deeper
- CNA stock overview
- CNA income statement
- CNA valuation and score
- MKL stock overview
- MKL income statement
- MKL valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.