AFL vs. MET

Last updated Apr 2, 2026

Compare and contrast key facts about Aflac Incorporated (AFL) and MetLife, Inc. (MET).

Performance

AFL vs. MET - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Aflac Incorporated (AFL) and MetLife, Inc. (MET). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

AFL vs. MET - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
AFL Aflac Incorporated	-0.04%	8.94%	28.08%	17.36%	26.41%	34.55%	-13.60%	18.55%	6.20%	29.02%
MET MetLife, Inc.	-9.20%	-0.80%	27.68%	-5.49%	19.23%	37.43%	-3.42%	28.84%	-15.77%	21.67%

Fundamentals

EPS AFL : $6.83 MET : $7.54
PE Ratio AFL : 16.06 MET : 9.44
PEG Ratio AFL : 4.16 MET : 0.22
PS Ratio AFL : 3.37 MET : 0.42
Total Revenue (TTM) AFL : $17.36B MET : $76.13B
Gross Profit (TTM) AFL : $6.71B MET : $12.20B
EBITDA (TTM) AFL : $5.53B MET : $4.34B

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, AFL achieves a -0.04% return, which is significantly higher than MET's -9.20% return. Over the past 10 years, AFL has outperformed MET with an annualized return of 15.75%, while MET has yielded a comparatively lower 10.93% annualized return.

AFL

• 1D: -0.06%
• 1M: -3.27%
• YTD: -0.04%
• 6M: 0.04%
• 1Y: -0.38%
• 3Y*: 21.97%
• 5Y*: 19.05%
• 10Y*: 15.75%

MET

• 1D: 0.64%
• 1M: -2.83%
• YTD: -9.20%
• 6M: -11.88%
• 1Y: -9.70%
• 3Y*: 10.46%
• 5Y*: 6.10%
• 10Y*: 10.93%

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

Return for Risk

AFL vs. MET — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

AFL

AFL Risk / Return Rank: 37
AFL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 39
AFL Sortino Ratio Rank: 32
AFL Omega Ratio Rank: 31
AFL Calmar Ratio Rank: 42
AFL Martin Ratio Rank: 43

MET

MET Risk / Return Rank: 22
MET Sharpe Ratio Rank: 25
MET Sortino Ratio Rank: 23
MET Omega Ratio Rank: 23
MET Calmar Ratio Rank: 24
MET Martin Ratio Rank: 17

The rank (0–100) shows how this investment's returns compare to the risk taken. Higher = better. Based on the past 12 months of data, combining Sharpe, Sortino, and other metrics used by quantitative funds and institutional investors.

AFL vs. MET - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Aflac Incorporated (AFL) and MetLife, Inc. (MET). Risk-adjusted metrics are performance indicators that assess an investment's returns in relation to its risk, enabling a more accurate comparison of different investment options.

	AFL	MET	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	-0.02	-0.34	+0.32
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	0.11	-0.28	+0.40
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.02	0.96	+0.05
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.06	-0.50	+0.56
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	0.13	-1.23	+1.36
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

AFL vs. MET - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current AFL Sharpe Ratio is -0.02, which is higher than the MET Sharpe Ratio of -0.34. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of AFL and MET, offering insights into how both investments have performed under varying market conditions. These values are calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	AFL	MET	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.02	-0.34	+0.32
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.92	0.24	+0.68
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.61	0.36	+0.26
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.48	0.24	+0.23

Correlation

The correlation between AFL and MET is 0.64, which is considered to be moderate. This suggests that the two assets have some degree of positive relationship in their price movements. Moderate correlation can be acceptable for portfolio diversification, offering a balance between risk and potential returns.

Dividends

AFL vs. MET - Dividend Comparison

AFL's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.14%, less than MET's 3.19% yield.

	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
AFL Aflac Incorporated	2.14%	2.10%	1.93%	2.04%	2.22%	2.26%	2.52%	2.04%	2.28%	1.98%	2.39%	2.64%
MET MetLife, Inc.	3.19%	2.85%	2.63%	3.12%	2.74%	3.04%	3.88%	3.41%	4.04%	14.52%	2.92%	3.06%

Drawdowns

AFL vs. MET - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum AFL drawdown since its inception was -82.71%, roughly equal to the maximum MET drawdown of -82.37%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for AFL and MET.

Drawdown Indicators

	AFL	MET	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-82.71%	-82.37%	-0.34%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-12.15%	-17.46%	+5.31%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-19.86%	-35.09%	+15.23%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-54.89%	-55.16%	+0.27%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-6.17%	-16.42%	+10.25%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-11.70%	-17.71%	+6.01%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	5.68%	7.08%	-1.40%

Volatility

AFL vs. MET - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Aflac Incorporated (AFL) is 4.26%, while MetLife, Inc. (MET) has a volatility of 6.50%. This indicates that AFL experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than MET based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	AFL	MET	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.26%	6.50%	-2.24%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	11.79%	17.82%	-6.03%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	20.41%	28.52%	-8.11%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	20.86%	25.67%	-4.81%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	25.70%	30.73%	-5.03%

Financials

AFL vs. MET - Profitability Comparison

The chart below illustrates the profitability comparison between Aflac Incorporated and MetLife, Inc. over time, highlighting three key metrics: Gross Profit Margin, Operating Margin, and Net Profit Margin.

AFL - Gross Margin

Gross margin is calculated as gross profit divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Apr 2026, Aflac Incorporated reported a gross profit of 2.93B and revenue of 4.90B. Therefore, the gross margin over that period was 59.9%.

MET - Gross Margin

Gross margin is calculated as gross profit divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Apr 2026, MetLife, Inc. reported a gross profit of 0.00 and revenue of 23.81B. Therefore, the gross margin over that period was 0.0%.

AFL - Operating Margin

Operating margin is calculated as operating income divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Apr 2026, Aflac Incorporated reported an operating income of 1.60B and revenue of 4.90B, resulting in an operating margin of 32.7%.

MET - Operating Margin

Operating margin is calculated as operating income divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Apr 2026, MetLife, Inc. reported an operating income of 0.00 and revenue of 23.81B, resulting in an operating margin of 0.0%.

AFL - Net Margin

Net margin is calculated as net income divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Apr 2026, Aflac Incorporated reported a net income of 1.38B and revenue of 4.90B, resulting in a net margin of 28.2%.

MET - Net Margin

Net margin is calculated as net income divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Apr 2026, MetLife, Inc. reported a net income of 809.00M and revenue of 23.81B, resulting in a net margin of 3.4%.