Lincoln National vs MetLife
LNC and MET side by side, both in life insurance. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How LNC and MET compare
MetLife is the larger company, worth 8.1 times as much as Lincoln National ($65.2B against $8.0B).
On earnings, Lincoln National is cheaper: it trades at 2.6× trailing earnings, against 13.4× for MetLife.
MetLife grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (14.8% versus 10.3% for Lincoln National).
Lincoln National keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 16.4% compared with 6.2% at MetLife.
Both pay dividends: Lincoln National yields 4.3% and MetLife 1.7%.
Lincoln National scores higher on the StockData Score (20 against 10 for MetLife), 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 | LNC | MET |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $8.0B | $65.2B |
| Share price | $41.96 | $102.65 |
| Change, 1 year | 0.36% | 28.0% |
| Change, 5 years | −39.7% | 67.9% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.38 | 0.87 |
| Employees | 9,423 | 46K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 20 (better) | 10 |
| Valuation score | 6 (better) | 1 |
| Growth score | 2 | 2 |
| Performance score | 4 (better) | 2 |
| Health score | 4 (better) | 2 |
| Dividend score | 4 (better) | 3 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 2.6× (better) | 13.4× |
| P/S | 0.4× (better) | 0.8× |
| P/B | 0.9× (better) | 2.9× |
| EV/EBITDA | – | 5.7× |
| Fair value | $82.35 | $73.77 |
| Margin of safety | 49.0% (better) | −39.2% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 10.3% | 14.8% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 0.87% | 2.6% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 57.1% (better) | 33.5% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 45.3% (better) | 44.4% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 17.9% (better) | −3.7% |
| Profitability | ||
| Operating margin | – | 8.2% |
| Net margin | 16.4% (better) | 6.2% |
| Return on equity | 33.3% (better) | 20.0% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.00 | 0.01 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | – | −4.06 |
| Altman Z-score | 0.10 | 0.28 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 2 | 6 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 4.3% (better) | 1.7% |
| Payout ratio | 10.4% | 29.4% |
| Years of dividend growth | 0 | 13 (better) |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 2.1% | 4.3% (better) |
| Buyback yield | – | 4.0% |
| Shareholder yield | 4.3% | 5.7% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 85.9% | 76.5% |
| Held by insiders | 10.8% | 16.1% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$7.2M (better) | −$21.0M |
| Superinvestors holding | 1 | – |
| Short interest, % of float | 6.4% | 2.0% |
Go deeper
- LNC stock overview
- LNC income statement
- LNC valuation and score
- MET stock overview
- MET income statement
- MET valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.