AFL vs. GS: A Head-to-Head Stock Comparison
UpdatedHere’s a clear look at AFL and GS, comparing key factors like performance, valuation metrics, dividends, and financial strength. It’s built for investors or anyone curious to see how these two stocks match up.
Company Overview
GS stands out with 182.10 billion USD in market value—about 3.25× AFL’s market cap of 55.98 billion USD.
GS carries a higher beta at 1.31, indicating it’s more sensitive to market moves, while AFL remains steadier at 0.83.
| Symbol | AFL | GS |
|---|---|---|
| Company Name | Aflac Incorporated | The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. |
| Country | US | US |
| Sector | Financial Services | Financial Services |
| Industry | Insurance - Life | Financial - Capital Markets |
| CEO | Mr. Daniel Paul Amos | Mr. David Solomon |
| Price | 103.54 USD | 593.46 USD |
| Market Cap | 55.98 billion USD | 182.10 billion USD |
| Beta | 0.83 | 1.31 |
| Exchange | NYSE | NYSE |
| IPO Date | March 17, 1980 | May 4, 1999 |
| ADR | No | No |
Performance Comparison
This chart compares the performance of AFL and GS over the past year by tracking the growth of an initial $10,000 investment in each (starting one year ago).
Hover over the lines to see the investment’s value and total return (%) at specific dates.
Data is adjusted for dividends and splits.
Valuation Metrics Comparison
The section examines key financial ratios to assess the valuation of AFL and GS based on earnings, cash flow, sales, and book value. Pay attention to the following notable points where extreme values stand out.
- GS reports a negative Price-to-Free Cash Flow ratio of -7.43, showing a cash flow shortfall that could threaten its operational sustainability, while AFL at 22.88 maintains positive cash flow.
| Symbol | AFL | GS |
|---|---|---|
| Price-to-Earnings Ratio (P/E, TTM) | 15.70 | 12.79 |
| Forward PEG Ratio (TTM) | 2.37 | 1.07 |
| Price-to-Sales Ratio (P/S, TTM) | 4.09 | 3.54 |
| Price-to-Book Ratio (P/B, TTM) | 2.14 | 107.80 |
| Price-to-Free Cash Flow Ratio (P/FCF, TTM) | 22.88 | -7.43 |
| EV-to-EBITDA (TTM) | 13.32 | 9.85 |
| EV-to-Sales (TTM) | 4.27 | 3.54 |
| EV-to-Free Cash Flow (TTM) | 23.91 | -7.43 |
Dividend Comparison
Both AFL and GS offer similar dividend yields (2.09% vs. 1.98%), indicating comparable approaches to balancing income and growth.
| Symbol | AFL | GS |
|---|---|---|
| Dividend Yield (TTM) | 2.09% | 1.98% |
Financial Strength Metrics Comparison
This section dives into the financial resilience of AFL and GS, spotlighting key metrics like liquidity, leverage, and debt coverage. Check out the standout observations below where notable differences or extremes pop up.
- AFL’s current ratio of 0.00 signals a possible liquidity squeeze, while GS at 2.35 comfortably covers its short-term obligations.
- AFL’s quick ratio of 0.00 suggests it may struggle to cover immediate liabilities without selling inventory or raising cash, whereas GS at 2.35 maintains a comfortable buffer of liquid assets.
- GS’s low interest coverage (0.23) means it doesn't cover interest from operating earnings. AFL (at 21.95) meets its interest obligations.
| Symbol | AFL | GS |
|---|---|---|
| Current Ratio (TTM) | 0.00 | 2.35 |
| Quick Ratio (TTM) | 0.00 | 2.35 |
| Debt-to-Equity Ratio (TTM) | 0.29 | 0.04 |
| Debt-to-Assets Ratio (TTM) | 0.06 | 0.02 |
| Interest Coverage Ratio (TTM) | 21.95 | 0.23 |