AFL vs. MARA: A Head-to-Head Stock Comparison
UpdatedHere’s a clear look at AFL and MARA, 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
AFL dominates in value with a market cap of 55.98 billion USD, eclipsing MARA’s 5.57 billion USD by roughly 10.04×.
MARA carries a higher beta at 6.84, indicating it’s more sensitive to market moves, while AFL remains steadier at 0.83.
| Symbol | AFL | MARA |
|---|---|---|
| Company Name | Aflac Incorporated | Marathon Digital Holdings, Inc. |
| Country | US | US |
| Sector | Financial Services | Financial Services |
| Industry | Insurance - Life | Financial - Capital Markets |
| CEO | Mr. Daniel Paul Amos | Mr. Frederick G. Thiel |
| Price | 103.54 USD | 15.84 USD |
| Market Cap | 55.98 billion USD | 5.57 billion USD |
| Beta | 0.83 | 6.84 |
| Exchange | NYSE | NASDAQ |
| IPO Date | March 17, 1980 | May 4, 2012 |
| ADR | No | No |
Performance Comparison
This chart compares the performance of AFL and MARA 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 MARA based on earnings, cash flow, sales, and book value. Pay attention to the following notable points where extreme values stand out.
- MARA shows a negative P/E of -16.56, highlighting a year of losses, whereas AFL at 15.70 trades on solid profitability.
- MARA reports a negative Price-to-Free Cash Flow ratio of -4.53, showing a cash flow shortfall that could threaten its operational sustainability, while AFL at 22.88 maintains positive cash flow.
| Symbol | AFL | MARA |
|---|---|---|
| Price-to-Earnings Ratio (P/E, TTM) | 15.70 | -16.56 |
| Forward PEG Ratio (TTM) | 2.37 | 0.88 |
| Price-to-Sales Ratio (P/S, TTM) | 4.09 | 7.91 |
| Price-to-Book Ratio (P/B, TTM) | 2.14 | 1.46 |
| Price-to-Free Cash Flow Ratio (P/FCF, TTM) | 22.88 | -4.53 |
| EV-to-EBITDA (TTM) | 13.32 | 24.10 |
| EV-to-Sales (TTM) | 4.27 | 11.37 |
| EV-to-Free Cash Flow (TTM) | 23.91 | -6.51 |
Dividend Comparison
AFL delivers a 2.09% dividend yield, blending income with growth, whereas MARA appears to retain its profits, possibly to fund operations, R&D, or other growth initiatives.
| Symbol | AFL | MARA |
|---|---|---|
| Dividend Yield (TTM) | 2.09% | 0.00% |
Financial Strength Metrics Comparison
This section dives into the financial resilience of AFL and MARA, spotlighting key metrics like liquidity, leverage, and debt coverage. Check out the standout observations below where notable differences or extremes pop up.
- With current ratios of 0.00 and 0.79, both AFL and MARA have less current assets than short-term liabilities, which could strain their working capital and force reliance on additional financing.
- Both AFL (quick ratio 0.00) and MARA (quick ratio 0.79) fall below 0.8, meaning their most liquid assets—excluding inventory—aren’t enough to meet short-term obligations. This could force them to rely on receivables, inventory turn, or external financing.
- AFL meets its interest obligations (ratio 21.95). In stark contrast, MARA’s negative ratio (-27.89) means its operating earnings (EBIT) don't cover basic operations, let alone interest, signaling serious financial trouble.
| Symbol | AFL | MARA |
|---|---|---|
| Current Ratio (TTM) | 0.00 | 0.79 |
| Quick Ratio (TTM) | 0.00 | 0.79 |
| Debt-to-Equity Ratio (TTM) | 0.29 | 0.71 |
| Debt-to-Assets Ratio (TTM) | 0.06 | 0.41 |
| Interest Coverage Ratio (TTM) | 21.95 | -27.89 |