AFL vs. UNM
AFL (Aflac Incorporated) and UNM (Unum Group) are both stocks. Both operate in the Insurance - Life industry within the Financial Services sector. Over the past 10 years, AFL returned 16.21%/yr vs 13.77%/yr for UNM. Their 0.47 correlation means their historical movements had little consistent relationship.
Performance
AFL vs. UNM - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, AFL achieves a 16.82% return, which is significantly higher than UNM's 13.11% return. Over the past 10 years, AFL has outperformed UNM with an annualized return of 16.21%, while UNM has yielded a comparatively lower 13.77% annualized return.
AFL
- 1D
- 0.09%
- 1M
- 5.46%
- 6M
- 16.11%
- YTD
- 16.82%
- 1Y
- 32.73%
- 3Y*
- 23.54%
- 5Y*
- 21.03%
- 10Y*
- 16.21%
- ALL TIME*
- 17.37%
UNM
- 1D
- -0.76%
- 1M
- -6.20%
- 6M
- 14.69%
- YTD
- 13.11%
- 1Y
- 26.47%
- 3Y*
- 24.15%
- 5Y*
- 29.59%
- 10Y*
- 13.77%
- ALL TIME*
- 8.82%
Liquidity Comparison
| Position | Avg. Volume Value (2W) | Avg. Volume Value (1M) | Avg. Volume Value (3M) |
|---|---|---|---|
| $225.90M | $232.72M | $283.39M | |
UNM Unum Group | $144.51M | $136.21M | $122.97M |
AFL vs. UNM - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
AFL Aflac Incorporated | 16.82% | 8.94% | 28.08% | 17.36% | 26.41% | 34.55% | -13.60% | 18.55% | 6.20% | 29.02% |
UNM Unum Group | 13.11% | 8.56% | 66.31% | 13.72% | 73.56% | 11.87% | -16.22% | 2.63% | -45.22% | 27.19% |
Correlation
The correlation between AFL and UNM is 0.45, which is low. Their historical price movements had little consistent relationship.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most. | 0.45 |
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history. | 0.56 |
Correlation (5Y) Shows whether the relationship held over a longer period. | 0.62 |
Correlation (10Y) Provides a long-term view across more market conditions. | 0.65 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 6, 1986 | 0.47 |
The correlation between AFL and UNM shifts across timeframes, from 0.45 (1 year) to 0.65 (10 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.
Fundamentals
AFL:
$64.89B
UNM:
$13.63B
AFL:
$8.81
UNM:
$4.24
AFL:
14.47
UNM:
20.31
AFL:
3.75
UNM:
1.42
AFL:
3.68
UNM:
1.08
AFL:
2.92
UNM:
1.43
AFL:
$18.22B
UNM:
$13.25B
AFL:
$8.70B
UNM:
$4.73B
AFL:
$6.67B
UNM:
$1.21B
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
AFL vs. UNM — Risk / Return Rank
AFL
UNM
AFL vs. UNM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Aflac Incorporated (AFL) and Unum Group (UNM). 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.
Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.
| AFL | UNM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +0.82 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +1.09 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.31 | 1.20 | +0.12 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 3.42 | 1.98 | +1.44 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 9.15 | 4.97 | +4.18 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
AFL vs. UNM - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum AFL drawdown since its inception was -82.71%, smaller than the maximum UNM drawdown of -89.38%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for AFL and UNM.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| AFL | UNM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -82.71% | -89.38% | +6.67% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -9.11% | -11.55% | +2.44% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -13.56% | -17.94% | +4.38% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -19.86% | -20.95% | +1.09% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -54.89% | -81.06% | +26.17% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -1.60% | -6.59% | +4.99% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -11.62% | -32.57% | +20.95% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 3.40% | 4.66% | -1.26% |
Volatility
AFL vs. UNM - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for Aflac Incorporated (AFL) is 4.52%, while Unum Group (UNM) has a volatility of 8.35%. This indicates that AFL experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than UNM based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| AFL | UNM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 4.52% | 8.35% | -3.83% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 12.59% | 16.55% | -3.96% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 16.90% | 22.38% | -5.48% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 20.75% | 29.81% | -9.06% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 25.73% | 37.46% | -11.73% |
Dividends
AFL vs. UNM - Dividend Comparison
AFL's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.87%, less than UNM's 2.19% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
AFL Aflac Incorporated | 1.87% | 2.10% | 1.93% | 2.04% | 2.22% | 2.26% | 2.52% | 2.04% | 2.28% | 1.98% | 2.39% | 2.64% |
UNM Unum Group | 2.19% | 2.27% | 2.15% | 3.07% | 3.07% | 4.76% | 4.97% | 3.74% | 3.34% | 1.57% | 1.75% | 2.10% |
Financials
AFL vs. UNM - Financials Comparison
This section allows you to compare key financial metrics between Aflac Incorporated and Unum Group. You can select fields from income statements, balance sheets, and cash flow statements to easily visualize and compare the financial health of both companies.
Total Revenue: Total amount of money received from sales and other business activities
AFL vs. UNM - Profitability Comparison
AFL - Gross Margin
Gross margin is calculated as gross profit divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Aug 2026, Aflac Incorporated reported a gross profit of 2.48B and revenue of 4.32B. Therefore, the gross margin over that period was 57.5%.
UNM - Gross Margin
Gross margin is calculated as gross profit divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Aug 2026, Unum Group reported a gross profit of 1.29B and revenue of 3.29B. Therefore, the gross margin over that period was 39.2%.
AFL - Operating Margin
Operating margin is calculated as operating income divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Aug 2026, Aflac Incorporated reported an operating income of 1.23B and revenue of 4.32B, resulting in an operating margin of 28.4%.
UNM - Operating Margin
Operating margin is calculated as operating income divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Aug 2026, Unum Group reported an operating income of 329.50M and revenue of 3.29B, resulting in an operating margin of 10.0%.
AFL - Net Margin
Net margin is calculated as net income divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Aug 2026, Aflac Incorporated reported a net income of 1.02B and revenue of 4.32B, resulting in a net margin of 23.6%.
UNM - Net Margin
Net margin is calculated as net income divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Aug 2026, Unum Group reported a net income of 256.90M and revenue of 3.29B, resulting in a net margin of 7.8%.
Frequently Asked Questions
AFL and UNM have a correlation of 0.45, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
UNM has higher volatility (8.35%) compared to AFL (4.52%). In terms of maximum drawdown, AFL dropped -82.71% vs UNM's -89.38%.
AFL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.85 vs 1.02), meaning it's delivered slightly more return per unit of risk over the trailing 12 months. However, this ranking shifts over time - use the Risk/Return Score above for a more comprehensive view that combines Sharpe, Sortino, and other measures used by quantitative funds.
Find the right allocation for AFL and UNM
Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.
Open Portfolio Optimizer