MetLife (MET) Competitors

Aflac (NYSE:AFL) and MetLife (NYSE:MET) are both large-cap finance companies, but which is the better stock? We will compare the two businesses based on the strength of their profitability, community ranking, earnings, dividends, media sentiment, risk, valuation, institutional ownership and analyst recommendations.

Do insiders and institutionals have more ownership in AFL or MET?

67.4% of Aflac shares are held by institutional investors. Comparatively, 95.0% of MetLife shares are held by institutional investors. 0.9% of Aflac shares are held by company insiders. Comparatively, 0.3% of MetLife shares are held by company insiders. Strong institutional ownership is an indication that large money managers, hedge funds and endowments believe a company is poised for long-term growth.

Does the MarketBeat Community prefer AFL or MET?

MetLife received 371 more outperform votes than Aflac when rated by MarketBeat users. Likewise, 73.83% of users gave MetLife an outperform vote while only 56.62% of users gave Aflac an outperform vote.

Company	Underperform	Outperform
Aflac	Outperform Votes 577 56.62%	Underperform Votes 442 43.38%
MetLife	Outperform Votes 948 73.83%	Underperform Votes 336 26.17%

Which has stronger earnings and valuation, AFL or MET?

Aflac has higher earnings, but lower revenue than MetLife. Aflac is trading at a lower price-to-earnings ratio than MetLife, indicating that it is currently the more affordable of the two stocks.

Company	Gross Revenue	Price/Sales Ratio	Net Income	Earnings Per Share	Price/Earnings Ratio
Aflac	$17.43B	3.27	$4.66B	$6.64	15.47
MetLife	$70.55B	0.80	$1.58B	$4.96	16.40

Is AFL or MET more profitable?

Aflac has a net margin of 22.02% compared to MetLife's net margin of 5.27%. MetLife's return on equity of 20.01% beat Aflac's return on equity.

Company	Net Margins	Return on Equity	Return on Assets
Aflac	22.02%	16.34%	3.15%
MetLife	5.27%	20.01%	0.86%

Does the media favor AFL or MET?

In the previous week, Aflac and Aflac both had 12 articles in the media. Aflac's average media sentiment score of 0.59 beat MetLife's score of 0.41 indicating that Aflac is being referred to more favorably in the media.

Company	Very Positive	Positive	Neutral	Negative	Very Negative	Overall Sentiment
Aflac	5 Very Positive mention(s)	0 Positive mention(s)	4 Neutral mention(s)	2 Negative mention(s)	1 Very Negative mention(s)	Positive
MetLife	4 Very Positive mention(s)	0 Positive mention(s)	6 Neutral mention(s)	1 Negative mention(s)	1 Very Negative mention(s)	Neutral

Is AFL or MET a better dividend stock?

Aflac pays an annual dividend of $2.32 per share and has a dividend yield of 2.3%. MetLife pays an annual dividend of $2.18 per share and has a dividend yield of 2.7%. Aflac pays out 34.9% of its earnings in the form of a dividend. MetLife pays out 44.0% of its earnings in the form of a dividend. Both companies have healthy payout ratios and should be able to cover their dividend payments with earnings for the next several years. MetLife has raised its dividend for 11 consecutive years. MetLife is clearly the better dividend stock, given its higher yield and longer track record of dividend growth.

Do analysts prefer AFL or MET?

Aflac currently has a consensus target price of $98.73, indicating a potential downside of 3.85%. MetLife has a consensus target price of $88.62, indicating a potential upside of 8.92%. Given MetLife's stronger consensus rating and higher probable upside, analysts plainly believe MetLife is more favorable than Aflac.

Company	Sell Ratings	Hold Ratings	Buy Ratings	Strong Buy Ratings	Rating Score
Aflac	3 Sell rating(s)	9 Hold rating(s)	3 Buy rating(s)	0 Strong Buy rating(s)	2.00
MetLife	0 Sell rating(s)	0 Hold rating(s)	13 Buy rating(s)	0 Strong Buy rating(s)	3.00

Which has more risk & volatility, AFL or MET?

Aflac has a beta of 0.97, indicating that its stock price is 3% less volatile than the S&P 500. Comparatively, MetLife has a beta of 1.06, indicating that its stock price is 6% more volatile than the S&P 500.

Summary

MetLife beats Aflac on 12 of the 20 factors compared between the two stocks.