Safety Insurance vs United Fire
SAFT and UFCS 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 SAFT and UFCS compare
Safety Insurance is the larger company, worth 1.2 times as much as United Fire ($1.5B against $1.3B).
On earnings, United Fire is cheaper: it trades at 9.8× trailing earnings, against 21.8× for Safety Insurance.
United Fire grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (11.6% versus 4.6% for Safety Insurance).
United Fire keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 9.1% compared with 5.5% at Safety Insurance.
Both pay dividends: Safety Insurance yields 3.5% and United Fire 1.5%.
United Fire scores higher on the StockData Score (11 against 8 for Safety Insurance), 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 | SAFT | UFCS |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $1.5B | $1.3B |
| Share price | $104.34 | $51.30 |
| Change, 1 year | 35.8% | 40.0% |
| Change, 5 years | 34.3% | 134% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.32 | 0.51 |
| Employees | 568 | 1,173 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 8 | 11 (better) |
| Valuation score | 1 | 4 (better) |
| Growth score | 2 | 3 (better) |
| Performance score | 1 | 2 (better) |
| Health score | 0 | 0 |
| Dividend score | 4 (better) | 2 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 21.8× | 9.8× (better) |
| P/S | 1.2× | 0.9× (better) |
| P/B | 1.8× | 1.4× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 15.2× | 5.9× (better) |
| P/FCF | 10.4× | – |
| PEG | 0.76 | 0.10 (better) |
| FCF yield | 9.6% | – |
| Fair value | $77.42 | $50.99 |
| Margin of safety | −34.8% | −0.60% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 4.6% | 11.6% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 8.4% (better) | 5.3% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −19.4% | 23.0% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −18.8% | 23.3% (better) |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | −6.1% | – |
| Profitability | ||
| Net margin | 5.5% | 9.1% (better) |
| FCF margin | 11.4% | – |
| Return on equity | 8.0% | 14.9% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Altman Z-score | 1.54 (better) | 0.90 |
| Piotroski F-score | 6 (better) | 5 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 3.5% (better) | 1.5% |
| Payout ratio | 76.5% | 14.2% |
| Years of dividend growth | 1 (better) | 0 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 0.22% (better) | −10.9% |
| Buyback yield | – | 0.24% |
| Shareholder yield | 3.5% (better) | 1.7% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 84.4% | 68.4% |
| Held by insiders | 12.5% | 16.4% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$139M | −$757K (better) |
| Short interest, % of float | 3.0% | 1.7% |
Go deeper
- SAFT stock overview
- SAFT income statement
- SAFT valuation and score
- UFCS stock overview
- UFCS income statement
- UFCS valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.