BNT vs. MRSH: Brookfield Wealth vs. Marsh & McLennan Stock Comparison

Company Profile

Brookfield Wealth (BNT) and Marsh & McLennan (MRSH) both belong to the Insurance industry, though BNT is classified under Life & Health Insurance while MRSH falls under Insurance Brokers.

Marsh & McLennan (MRSH) has more than two decades of public-market history since February 21, 1973, whereas Brookfield Wealth (BNT) listed on June 28, 2021 and has a much shorter record to draw on.

Price Performance

Cumulative Growth

Trailing Returns

Calendar-Year Returns

Performance Metrics

Risk Profile

Drawdown History

Return Distribution

Risk Metrics

Brookfield Wealth (BNT) has an aggressive beta of 1.57, indicating higher sensitivity to broad-market moves, while Marsh & McLennan (MRSH) is defensive at 0.51 and tends to be less market-sensitive — they sit on opposite ends of the beta spectrum.

Marsh & McLennan (MRSH) trades around 2.43M shares per day on average, while Brookfield Wealth (BNT) sees only 15.15K — a volume gap that can matter for position sizing, exit liquidity, and order execution.

Risk-Adjusted Performance

Risk-Return Positioning

Risk-Adjusted Metrics

Profitability

Marsh & McLennan (MRSH) at 27.24% sits in the top ROE quartile, while Brookfield Wealth (BNT) at 1.05% is in the bottom quartile, showing a clear gap in returns on equity.

Marsh & McLennan (MRSH) at 14.20% keeps about the industry-typical share of revenue as profit, while Brookfield Wealth (BNT) at 1.06% retains only a bottom-quartile share.

Neither side reports a meaningful operating margin: for Brookfield Wealth (BNT) in Insurance and Marsh & McLennan (MRSH) in Insurance, funding costs are part of the core business, so net margin and ROE are the cleaner profitability reads.

Profitability Metrics

Growth

Marsh & McLennan (MRSH) at 10.32% is around its peer norm for revenue growth, while Brookfield Wealth (BNT) at -20.37% drops into the bottom quartile, signaling weaker demand or pricing momentum.

Marsh & McLennan (MRSH) at 3.06% is around its peer norm for EPS growth, while Brookfield Wealth (BNT) at -53.90% drops into the bottom quartile, signaling weaker earnings momentum.

Growth Metrics

Financial Strength

current ratio doesn’t apply on either side: Brookfield Wealth (BNT) in Insurance and Marsh & McLennan (MRSH) in Insurance both report balance sheets without a current/non-current split, so their short-term liquidity is better judged through regulatory and funding measures.

debt-to-equity ratio is set aside for both: Brookfield Wealth (BNT) in Insurance and Marsh & McLennan (MRSH) in Insurance run businesses where balance-sheet leverage is part of the model, so capital-adequacy and funding measures are the better gauges of balance-sheet risk.

Financial Strength Metrics

Dividends

Both Brookfield Wealth (BNT) at 0.62% and Marsh & McLennan (MRSH) at 1.80% pay solid, industry-typical yields, sitting squarely within their peers’ usual range.

Brookfield Wealth (BNT) at 30.95% pays out a band-typical share of earnings, while Marsh & McLennan (MRSH) at 44.14% distributes more than its industry norm — less retained, thinner cover.

Dividend Metrics

Valuation

Both look expensive on trailing earnings: Marsh & McLennan (MRSH) at 24.50 sits in the richer P/E ratio quartile, and Brookfield Wealth (BNT) at 49.19 is richer still, above its industry range.

Brookfield Wealth (BNT) at 0.96 is priced about in line with its industry on P/S ratio, while Marsh & McLennan (MRSH) at 3.42 sits in the pricier quartile — MRSH costs more per dollar of sales.

Brookfield Wealth (BNT) at 0.84 sits in the lower P/B ratio quartile relative to book while Marsh & McLennan (MRSH) at 6.64 prices above its industry range — a wide valuation gap against assets.

Valuation Metrics