AFL vs. MS: A Head-to-Head Stock Comparison
UpdatedHere’s a clear look at AFL and MS, 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
MS towers over AFL with a market cap of 201.02 billion USD, roughly 3.59 times the 55.98 billion USD of its peer.
MS dances to a riskier tune, sporting a beta of 1.30, while AFL keeps it calmer at 0.83.
| Symbol | AFL | MS |
|---|---|---|
| Company Name | Aflac Incorporated | Morgan Stanley |
| Country | US | US |
| Sector | Financial Services | Financial Services |
| Industry | Insurance - Life | Financial - Capital Markets |
| CEO | Mr. Daniel Paul Amos | Mr. Edward N. Pick |
| Price | 103.54 USD | 125.3 USD |
| Market Cap | 55.98 billion USD | 201.02 billion USD |
| Beta | 0.829 | 1.3 |
| Exchange | NYSE | NYSE |
| IPO Date | March 17, 1980 | February 23, 1993 |
| ADR | No | No |
Performance Comparison
This chart compares the performance of AFL and MS 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 MS based on earnings, cash flow, sales, and book value. Pay attention to the following notable points where extreme values stand out.
- MS has a negative Price-to-Free Cash Flow of -95.72, indicating it’s spent more cash than it’s brought in over the past year—a cash flow shortfall that raises questions about its operational sustainability. Meanwhile, AFL at 22.88 maintains a positive cash position.
| Symbol | AFL | MS |
|---|---|---|
| Price-to-Earnings Ratio (P/E, TTM) | 15.70 | 13.89 |
| Forward PEG Ratio (TTM) | 2.37 | 1.97 |
| Price-to-Sales Ratio (P/S, TTM) | 4.09 | 1.90 |
| Price-to-Book Ratio (P/B, TTM) | 2.14 | 1.90 |
| Price-to-Free Cash Flow Ratio (P/FCF, TTM) | 22.88 | -95.72 |
| EV-to-EBITDA (TTM) | 13.32 | 20.41 |
| EV-to-Sales (TTM) | 4.27 | 4.60 |
| EV-to-Free Cash Flow (TTM) | 23.91 | -231.32 |
Dividend Comparison
Both AFL at 2.09% and MS at 2.95% pay dividends, blending income with growth in their strategies. Their yields align closely, indicating similar income-growth balances.
| Symbol | AFL | MS |
|---|---|---|
| Dividend Yield (TTM) | 2.09% | 2.95% |
Financial Strength Metrics Comparison
This section dives into the financial resilience of AFL and MS, spotlighting key metrics like liquidity, leverage, and debt coverage. Check out the standout observations below where notable differences or extremes pop up.
- For both AFL (0.00) and MS (0.66), current ratios sit below 1. With current assets trailing short-term liabilities, they might tap into cash flow or borrowing to stay afloat—a setup not uncommon in certain sectors, though it bears monitoring if cash gets tight.
- AFL (0.00) and MS (0.66) both clock quick ratios under 0.8. Without inventory, their liquid assets don’t match short-term debts, so they might lean on sales or loans to cover the difference—doable if cash keeps flowing.
- MS’s 3.45 D/E breaches 3.0, loading up on debt that could test its resilience. In contrast, AFL at 0.29 plays it closer to the vest with borrowing.
- MS’s 0.41 sits under 1.5, where earnings hug interest costs too closely—a squeeze if income dips. Meanwhile, AFL at 21.95 has room to breathe.
| Symbol | AFL | MS |
|---|---|---|
| Current Ratio (TTM) | 0.00 | 0.66 |
| Quick Ratio (TTM) | 0.00 | 0.66 |
| Debt-to-Equity Ratio (TTM) | 0.29 | 3.45 |
| Debt-to-Assets Ratio (TTM) | 0.06 | 0.30 |
| Interest Coverage Ratio (TTM) | 21.95 | 0.41 |