LKFN vs. MET
LKFN (Lakeland Financial Corporation) and MET (MetLife, Inc.) are both stocks. Both are in the Financial Services sector — LKFN in Banks - Regional, MET in Insurance - Life. Over the past 10 years, LKFN returned 9.15%/yr vs 14.92%/yr for MET. Their 0.46 correlation means their historical movements had little consistent relationship.
Performance
LKFN vs. MET - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, LKFN achieves a 12.67% return, which is significantly lower than MET's 23.59% return. Over the past 10 years, LKFN has underperformed MET with an annualized return of 9.15%, while MET has yielded a comparatively higher 14.92% annualized return.
LKFN
- 1D
- 0.13%
- 1M
- 1.26%
- 6M
- 6.95%
- YTD
- 12.67%
- 1Y
- 5.23%
- 3Y*
- 7.72%
- 5Y*
- 1.63%
- 10Y*
- 9.15%
- ALL TIME*
- 10.73%
MET
- 1D
- -0.97%
- 1M
- 6.74%
- 6M
- 23.68%
- YTD
- 23.59%
- 1Y
- 33.79%
- 3Y*
- 18.78%
- 5Y*
- 14.17%
- 10Y*
- 14.92%
- ALL TIME*
- 10.94%
Liquidity Comparison
| Position | Avg. Volume Value (2W) | Avg. Volume Value (1M) | Avg. Volume Value (3M) |
|---|---|---|---|
| $10.18M | $11.67M | $12.72M | |
| $436.98M | $357.35M | $327.07M |
LKFN vs. MET - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
LKFN Lakeland Financial Corporation | 12.67% | -14.25% | 8.68% | -7.78% | -7.00% | 52.73% | 12.55% | 24.99% | -15.41% | 4.31% |
MET MetLife, Inc. | 23.59% | -0.80% | 27.68% | -5.49% | 19.23% | 37.43% | -3.42% | 28.84% | -15.77% | 21.67% |
Correlation
The correlation between LKFN and MET is 0.47, which is low. Their historical price movements had little consistent relationship.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most. | 0.47 |
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history. | 0.48 |
Correlation (5Y) Shows whether the relationship held over a longer period. | 0.49 |
Correlation (10Y) Provides a long-term view across more market conditions. | 0.55 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 5, 2000 | 0.46 |
The correlation between LKFN and MET has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.46 to 0.55 - a consistent structural relationship.
Fundamentals
LKFN:
$1.56B
MET:
$61.85B
LKFN:
$4.35
MET:
$8.14
LKFN:
14.41
MET:
11.81
LKFN:
7.15
MET:
0.39
LKFN:
3.75
MET:
0.56
LKFN:
$427.09M
MET:
$76.95B
LKFN:
$273.69M
MET:
$14.75B
LKFN:
$140.27M
MET:
$4.11B
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
LKFN vs. MET — Risk / Return Rank
LKFN
MET
LKFN vs. MET - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Lakeland Financial Corporation (LKFN) 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.
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.
| LKFN | MET | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -1.20 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -1.46 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.04 | 1.23 | -0.19 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 0.12 | 1.75 | -1.62 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 0.21 | 4.92 | -4.71 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
LKFN vs. MET - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum LKFN drawdown since its inception was -61.30%, smaller than the maximum MET drawdown of -82.37%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LKFN and MET.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| LKFN | MET | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -61.30% | -82.37% | +21.07% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -18.57% | -17.46% | -1.11% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -31.66% | -21.97% | -9.69% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -47.35% | -35.09% | -12.26% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -47.35% | -55.16% | +7.81% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -14.95% | -1.40% | -13.55% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -14.56% | -17.54% | +2.98% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 11.16% | 6.20% | +4.96% |
Volatility
LKFN vs. MET - Volatility Comparison
Lakeland Financial Corporation (LKFN) has a higher volatility of 8.07% compared to MetLife, Inc. (MET) at 5.87%. This indicates that LKFN's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than MET based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| LKFN | MET | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 8.07% | 5.87% | +2.20% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 16.60% | 17.72% | -1.12% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 25.57% | 23.75% | +1.82% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 29.71% | 25.51% | +4.20% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 31.27% | 30.38% | +0.89% |
Dividends
LKFN vs. MET - Dividend Comparison
LKFN's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.29%, more than MET's 2.39% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
LKFN Lakeland Financial Corporation | 3.29% | 3.51% | 2.79% | 2.82% | 2.19% | 1.70% | 2.24% | 2.37% | 2.49% | 1.75% | 1.53% | 2.03% |
MET MetLife, Inc. | 2.39% | 2.85% | 2.63% | 3.12% | 2.74% | 3.04% | 3.88% | 3.41% | 4.04% | 14.52% | 2.92% | 3.06% |
Financials
LKFN vs. MET - Financials Comparison
This section allows you to compare key financial metrics between Lakeland Financial Corporation and MetLife, Inc.. 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
LKFN vs. MET - Profitability Comparison
LKFN - Gross Margin
Gross margin is calculated as gross profit divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Aug 2026, Lakeland Financial Corporation reported a gross profit of 69.17M and revenue of 107.72M. Therefore, the gross margin over that period was 64.2%.
MET - Gross Margin
Gross margin is calculated as gross profit divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Aug 2026, MetLife, Inc. reported a gross profit of 0.00 and revenue of 19.07B. Therefore, the gross margin over that period was 0.0%.
LKFN - Operating Margin
Operating margin is calculated as operating income divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Aug 2026, Lakeland Financial Corporation reported an operating income of 34.88M and revenue of 107.72M, resulting in an operating margin of 32.4%.
MET - Operating Margin
Operating margin is calculated as operating income divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Aug 2026, MetLife, Inc. reported an operating income of 0.00 and revenue of 19.07B, resulting in an operating margin of 0.0%.
LKFN - Net Margin
Net margin is calculated as net income divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Aug 2026, Lakeland Financial Corporation reported a net income of 28.44M and revenue of 107.72M, resulting in a net margin of 26.4%.
MET - Net Margin
Net margin is calculated as net income divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Aug 2026, MetLife, Inc. reported a net income of 1.19B and revenue of 19.07B, resulting in a net margin of 6.2%.
Frequently Asked Questions
LKFN and MET have a correlation of 0.47, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
LKFN has higher volatility (8.07%) compared to MET (5.87%). In terms of maximum drawdown, LKFN dropped -61.30% vs MET's -82.37%.
MET currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.29 vs 0.09), 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 LKFN and MET
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