CINF Quote, Financials, Valuation and Earnings

CNA Financial has a net margin of -3.51% compared to Cincinnati Financial's net margin of 7.67%. Cincinnati Financial's return on equity of 10.82% beat CNA Financial's return on equity of 8.76%.

Cincinnati Financial has a consensus price target of $152.00, signalling upside risk potential of 4.68%. On the other hand CNA Financial has an analysts' consensus of $45.00 which suggests that it could fall by -6.83%. Given that Cincinnati Financial has higher upside potential than CNA Financial, analysts believe Cincinnati Financial is more attractive than CNA Financial.

Cincinnati Financial has a beta of 0.726, which suggesting that the stock is 27.386% less volatile than S&P 500. In comparison CNA Financial has a beta of 0.528, suggesting its less volatile than the S&P 500 by 47.159%.

Cincinnati Financial has a quarterly dividend of $0.87 per share corresponding to a yield of 2.27%. CNA Financial offers a yield of 3.69% to investors and pays a quarterly dividend of $2.46 per share. Cincinnati Financial pays 21.38% of its earnings as a dividend. CNA Financial pays out 106.88% of its earnings as a dividend. Cincinnati Financial's payout ratio is sufficient to cover dividend payouts with earnings for the foreseeable future, but CNA Financial's is not.

Cincinnati Financial quarterly revenues are $2.6B, which are smaller than CNA Financial quarterly revenues of $3.6B. Cincinnati Financial's net income of -$90M is lower than CNA Financial's net income of $274M. Notably, Cincinnati Financial's price-to-earnings ratio is 15.83x while CNA Financial's PE ratio is 14.73x. 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 Cincinnati Financial is 2.08x versus 0.93x for CNA Financial. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.

RLI has a net margin of -3.51% compared to Cincinnati Financial's net margin of 15.51%. Cincinnati Financial's return on equity of 10.82% beat RLI's return on equity of 17.61%.

Cincinnati Financial has a consensus price target of $152.00, signalling upside risk potential of 4.68%. On the other hand RLI has an analysts' consensus of $78.25 which suggests that it could grow by 5.8%. Given that RLI has higher upside potential than Cincinnati Financial, analysts believe RLI is more attractive than Cincinnati Financial.

Cincinnati Financial has a beta of 0.726, which suggesting that the stock is 27.386% less volatile than S&P 500. In comparison RLI has a beta of 0.721, suggesting its less volatile than the S&P 500 by 27.894%.

Cincinnati Financial has a quarterly dividend of $0.87 per share corresponding to a yield of 2.27%. RLI offers a yield of 0.79% to investors and pays a quarterly dividend of $0.15 per share. Cincinnati Financial pays 21.38% of its earnings as a dividend. RLI pays out 68.15% of its earnings as a dividend. Both of these payout ratios are sufficient to cover dividend payouts with earnings for the foreseeable future.

Cincinnati Financial quarterly revenues are $2.6B, which are larger than RLI quarterly revenues of $407.7M. Cincinnati Financial's net income of -$90M is lower than RLI's net income of $63.2M. Notably, Cincinnati Financial's price-to-earnings ratio is 15.83x while RLI's PE ratio is 24.33x. 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 Cincinnati Financial is 2.08x versus 3.95x for RLI. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.

Universal Insurance Holdings has a net margin of -3.51% compared to Cincinnati Financial's net margin of 10.49%. Cincinnati Financial's return on equity of 10.82% beat Universal Insurance Holdings's return on equity of 17.07%.

Cincinnati Financial has a consensus price target of $152.00, signalling upside risk potential of 4.68%. On the other hand Universal Insurance Holdings has an analysts' consensus of $29.00 which suggests that it could grow by 14.58%. Given that Universal Insurance Holdings has higher upside potential than Cincinnati Financial, analysts believe Universal Insurance Holdings is more attractive than Cincinnati Financial.

Cincinnati Financial has a beta of 0.726, which suggesting that the stock is 27.386% less volatile than S&P 500. In comparison Universal Insurance Holdings has a beta of 0.829, suggesting its less volatile than the S&P 500 by 17.082%.

Cincinnati Financial has a quarterly dividend of $0.87 per share corresponding to a yield of 2.27%. Universal Insurance Holdings offers a yield of 2.53% to investors and pays a quarterly dividend of $0.16 per share. Cincinnati Financial pays 21.38% of its earnings as a dividend. Universal Insurance Holdings pays out 37.89% of its earnings as a dividend. Both of these payout ratios are sufficient to cover dividend payouts with earnings for the foreseeable future.

Cincinnati Financial quarterly revenues are $2.6B, which are larger than Universal Insurance Holdings quarterly revenues of $394.9M. Cincinnati Financial's net income of -$90M is lower than Universal Insurance Holdings's net income of $41.4M. Notably, Cincinnati Financial's price-to-earnings ratio is 15.83x while Universal Insurance Holdings's PE ratio is 11.05x. 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 Cincinnati Financial is 2.08x versus 0.47x for Universal Insurance Holdings. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.

WR Berkley has a net margin of -3.51% compared to Cincinnati Financial's net margin of 11.84%. Cincinnati Financial's return on equity of 10.82% beat WR Berkley's return on equity of 20.93%.

Cincinnati Financial has a consensus price target of $152.00, signalling upside risk potential of 4.68%. On the other hand WR Berkley has an analysts' consensus of $67.83 which suggests that it could fall by -7.18%. Given that Cincinnati Financial has higher upside potential than WR Berkley, analysts believe Cincinnati Financial is more attractive than WR Berkley.

Cincinnati Financial has a beta of 0.726, which suggesting that the stock is 27.386% less volatile than S&P 500. In comparison WR Berkley has a beta of 0.435, suggesting its less volatile than the S&P 500 by 56.478%.

Cincinnati Financial has a quarterly dividend of $0.87 per share corresponding to a yield of 2.27%. WR Berkley offers a yield of 0.44% to investors and pays a quarterly dividend of $0.08 per share. Cincinnati Financial pays 21.38% of its earnings as a dividend. WR Berkley pays out 30.29% of its earnings as a dividend. Both of these payout ratios are sufficient to cover dividend payouts with earnings for the foreseeable future.

Cincinnati Financial quarterly revenues are $2.6B, which are smaller than WR Berkley quarterly revenues of $3.5B. Cincinnati Financial's net income of -$90M is lower than WR Berkley's net income of $417.6M. Notably, Cincinnati Financial's price-to-earnings ratio is 15.83x while WR Berkley's PE ratio is 16.96x. 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 Cincinnati Financial is 2.08x versus 2.10x for WR Berkley. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.