MET vs. AFL
Compare and contrast key facts about MetLife, Inc. (MET) and Aflac Incorporated (AFL).
Scroll down to visually compare performance, riskiness, drawdowns, and other indicators and decide which better suits your portfolio: MET or AFL.
Correlation
The correlation between MET and AFL 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.
Performance
MET vs. AFL - Performance Comparison
Key characteristics
MET:
1.48
AFL:
1.52
MET:
1.90
AFL:
1.89
MET:
1.28
AFL:
1.31
MET:
2.69
AFL:
2.50
MET:
7.80
AFL:
6.66
MET:
4.20%
AFL:
4.71%
MET:
22.13%
AFL:
20.63%
MET:
-82.93%
AFL:
-82.71%
MET:
-1.67%
AFL:
-7.19%
Fundamentals
MET:
$60.09B
AFL:
$59.16B
MET:
$4.98
AFL:
$6.76
MET:
17.43
AFL:
15.75
MET:
0.15
AFL:
0.93
MET:
$52.32B
AFL:
$13.52B
MET:
$52.32B
AFL:
$13.52B
MET:
$4.48B
AFL:
$45.00M
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, MET achieves a 5.98% return, which is significantly higher than AFL's 2.95% return. Over the past 10 years, MET has underperformed AFL with an annualized return of 9.94%, while AFL has yielded a comparatively higher 16.67% annualized return.
MET
5.98%
10.14%
17.82%
32.17%
14.46%
9.94%
AFL
2.95%
6.10%
15.69%
30.11%
17.68%
16.67%
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Risk-Adjusted Performance
MET vs. AFL — Risk-Adjusted Performance Rank
MET
AFL
MET vs. AFL - Risk-Adjusted Performance Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for MetLife, Inc. (MET) and Aflac Incorporated (AFL). 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.
Dividends
MET vs. AFL - Dividend Comparison
MET's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.48%, more than AFL's 1.88% yield.
| TTM | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 | 2014 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
MET MetLife, Inc. | 2.48% | 2.63% | 3.12% | 2.74% | 3.04% | 3.88% | 3.41% | 4.04% | 0.79% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
AFL Aflac Incorporated | 1.88% | 1.93% | 2.04% | 2.22% | 2.26% | 2.52% | 2.04% | 2.28% | 1.98% | 2.39% | 2.64% | 2.46% |
Drawdowns
MET vs. AFL - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum MET drawdown since its inception was -82.93%, roughly equal to the maximum AFL drawdown of -82.71%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MET and AFL. For additional features, visit the drawdowns tool.
Volatility
MET vs. AFL - Volatility Comparison
MetLife, Inc. (MET) has a higher volatility of 6.78% compared to Aflac Incorporated (AFL) at 5.36%. This indicates that MET's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than AFL based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Financials
MET vs. AFL - Financials Comparison
This section allows you to compare key financial metrics between MetLife, Inc. and Aflac Incorporated. 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