BHF Quote, Financials, Valuation and Earnings

Abacus Global Management has a net margin of -11.55% compared to Brighthouse Financial's net margin of 10.51%. Brighthouse Financial's return on equity of 12.57% beat Abacus Global Management's return on equity of -5.84%.

Brighthouse Financial has a consensus price target of $60.38, signalling upside risk potential of 2.16%. On the other hand Abacus Global Management has an analysts' consensus of $13.70 which suggests that it could grow by 77.69%. Given that Abacus Global Management has higher upside potential than Brighthouse Financial, analysts believe Abacus Global Management is more attractive than Brighthouse Financial.

Brighthouse Financial has a beta of 0.958, which suggesting that the stock is 4.233% less volatile than S&P 500. In comparison Abacus Global Management has a beta of 0.000, suggesting its less volatile than the S&P 500 by 100%.

Brighthouse Financial has a quarterly dividend of $0.00 per share corresponding to a yield of 0%. Abacus Global Management offers a yield of 0% to investors and pays a quarterly dividend of $0.00 per share. Brighthouse Financial pays 26.29% of its earnings as a dividend. Abacus Global Management pays out -- of its earnings as a dividend. Brighthouse Financial's payout ratio is sufficient to cover dividend payouts with earnings for the foreseeable future.

Brighthouse Financial quarterly revenues are $2.3B, which are larger than Abacus Global Management quarterly revenues of $44.1M. Brighthouse Financial's net income of -$268M is lower than Abacus Global Management's net income of $4.6M. Notably, Brighthouse Financial's price-to-earnings ratio is 7.09x while Abacus Global Management's PE ratio is 70.19x. Generally a lower price-to-earnings ratio signals a stock is trading at a lower multiple of earnings and is a better value. Another key metric is the price-to-sales ratio, which for Brighthouse Financial is 0.54x versus 4.59x for Abacus Global Management. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.

Lincoln National has a net margin of -11.55% compared to Brighthouse Financial's net margin of -15.3%. Brighthouse Financial's return on equity of 12.57% beat Lincoln National's return on equity of 16.26%.

Brighthouse Financial has a consensus price target of $60.38, signalling upside risk potential of 2.16%. On the other hand Lincoln National has an analysts' consensus of $37.91 which suggests that it could grow by 13.91%. Given that Lincoln National has higher upside potential than Brighthouse Financial, analysts believe Lincoln National is more attractive than Brighthouse Financial.

Brighthouse Financial has a beta of 0.958, which suggesting that the stock is 4.233% less volatile than S&P 500. In comparison Lincoln National has a beta of 1.421, suggesting its more volatile than the S&P 500 by 42.054%.

Brighthouse Financial has a quarterly dividend of $0.00 per share corresponding to a yield of 0%. Lincoln National offers a yield of 5.41% to investors and pays a quarterly dividend of $0.45 per share. Brighthouse Financial pays 26.29% of its earnings as a dividend. Lincoln National pays out 12.15% of its earnings as a dividend. Both of these payout ratios are sufficient to cover dividend payouts with earnings for the foreseeable future.

Brighthouse Financial quarterly revenues are $2.3B, which are smaller than Lincoln National quarterly revenues of $4.7B. Brighthouse Financial's net income of -$268M is higher than Lincoln National's net income of -$722M. Notably, Brighthouse Financial's price-to-earnings ratio is 7.09x while Lincoln National's PE ratio is 4.73x. Generally a lower price-to-earnings ratio signals a stock is trading at a lower multiple of earnings and is a better value. Another key metric is the price-to-sales ratio, which for Brighthouse Financial is 0.54x versus 0.31x for Lincoln National. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.

MetLife has a net margin of -11.55% compared to Brighthouse Financial's net margin of 5.17%. Brighthouse Financial's return on equity of 12.57% beat MetLife's return on equity of 15.75%.

Brighthouse Financial has a consensus price target of $60.38, signalling upside risk potential of 2.16%. On the other hand MetLife has an analysts' consensus of $92.43 which suggests that it could grow by 17.21%. Given that MetLife has higher upside potential than Brighthouse Financial, analysts believe MetLife is more attractive than Brighthouse Financial.

Brighthouse Financial has a beta of 0.958, which suggesting that the stock is 4.233% less volatile than S&P 500. In comparison MetLife has a beta of 0.853, suggesting its less volatile than the S&P 500 by 14.655%.

Brighthouse Financial has a quarterly dividend of $0.00 per share corresponding to a yield of 0%. MetLife offers a yield of 2.79% to investors and pays a quarterly dividend of $0.57 per share. Brighthouse Financial pays 26.29% of its earnings as a dividend. MetLife pays out 39.02% of its earnings as a dividend. Both of these payout ratios are sufficient to cover dividend payouts with earnings for the foreseeable future.

Brighthouse Financial quarterly revenues are $2.3B, which are smaller than MetLife quarterly revenues of $18.3B. Brighthouse Financial's net income of -$268M is lower than MetLife's net income of $945M. Notably, Brighthouse Financial's price-to-earnings ratio is 7.09x while MetLife's PE ratio is 12.83x. Generally a lower price-to-earnings ratio signals a stock is trading at a lower multiple of earnings and is a better value. Another key metric is the price-to-sales ratio, which for Brighthouse Financial is 0.54x versus 0.76x for MetLife. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.

Prudential Financial has a net margin of -11.55% compared to Brighthouse Financial's net margin of 5.22%. Brighthouse Financial's return on equity of 12.57% beat Prudential Financial's return on equity of 7.43%.

Brighthouse Financial has a consensus price target of $60.38, signalling upside risk potential of 2.16%. On the other hand Prudential Financial has an analysts' consensus of $112.93 which suggests that it could grow by 8.24%. Given that Prudential Financial has higher upside potential than Brighthouse Financial, analysts believe Prudential Financial is more attractive than Brighthouse Financial.

Brighthouse Financial has a beta of 0.958, which suggesting that the stock is 4.233% less volatile than S&P 500. In comparison Prudential Financial has a beta of 1.075, suggesting its more volatile than the S&P 500 by 7.503%.

Brighthouse Financial has a quarterly dividend of $0.00 per share corresponding to a yield of 0%. Prudential Financial offers a yield of 5.08% to investors and pays a quarterly dividend of $1.35 per share. Brighthouse Financial pays 26.29% of its earnings as a dividend. Prudential Financial pays out 69.34% of its earnings as a dividend. Both of these payout ratios are sufficient to cover dividend payouts with earnings for the foreseeable future.

Brighthouse Financial quarterly revenues are $2.3B, which are smaller than Prudential Financial quarterly revenues of $13.5B. Brighthouse Financial's net income of -$268M is lower than Prudential Financial's net income of $707M. Notably, Brighthouse Financial's price-to-earnings ratio is 7.09x while Prudential Financial's PE ratio is 16.55x. Generally a lower price-to-earnings ratio signals a stock is trading at a lower multiple of earnings and is a better value. Another key metric is the price-to-sales ratio, which for Brighthouse Financial is 0.54x versus 0.62x for Prudential Financial. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.