CNA Quote, Financials, Valuation and Earnings

Loews has a net margin of 7.67% compared to CNA Financial's net margin of 8.34%. CNA Financial's return on equity of 8.76% beat Loews's return on equity of 7.5%.

CNA Financial has a consensus price target of $45.00, signalling downside risk potential of -6.07%. On the other hand Loews has an analysts' consensus of -- which suggests that it could fall by -64.16%. Given that Loews has more downside risk than CNA Financial, analysts believe CNA Financial is more attractive than Loews.

CNA Financial has a beta of 0.528, which suggesting that the stock is 47.159% less volatile than S&P 500. In comparison Loews has a beta of 0.695, suggesting its less volatile than the S&P 500 by 30.494%.

CNA Financial has a quarterly dividend of $0.46 per share corresponding to a yield of 3.76%. Loews offers a yield of 0.28% to investors and pays a quarterly dividend of $0.06 per share. CNA Financial pays 106.88% of its earnings as a dividend. Loews pays out 3.89% of its earnings as a dividend. Loews's payout ratio is sufficient to cover dividend payouts with earnings for the foreseeable future, but CNA Financial's is not.

CNA Financial quarterly revenues are $3.6B, which are smaller than Loews quarterly revenues of $4.4B. CNA Financial's net income of $274M is lower than Loews's net income of $370M. Notably, CNA Financial's price-to-earnings ratio is 14.61x while Loews's PE ratio is 14.66x. Generally a lower price-to-earnings ratio signals a stock is trading at a lower multiple of earnings and is a better value. Another key metric is the price-to-sales ratio, which for CNA Financial is 0.92x versus 1.11x for Loews. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.

Progressive has a net margin of 7.67% compared to CNA Financial's net margin of 12.58%. CNA Financial's return on equity of 8.76% beat Progressive's return on equity of 34.35%.

CNA Financial has a consensus price target of $45.00, signalling downside risk potential of -6.07%. On the other hand Progressive has an analysts' consensus of $287.9012 which suggests that it could grow by 1.04%. Given that Progressive has higher upside potential than CNA Financial, analysts believe Progressive is more attractive than CNA Financial.

CNA Financial has a beta of 0.528, which suggesting that the stock is 47.159% less volatile than S&P 500. In comparison Progressive has a beta of 0.403, suggesting its less volatile than the S&P 500 by 59.748%.

CNA Financial has a quarterly dividend of $0.46 per share corresponding to a yield of 3.76%. Progressive offers a yield of 3.33% to investors and pays a quarterly dividend of $0.10 per share. CNA Financial pays 106.88% of its earnings as a dividend. Progressive pays out 8.04% of its earnings as a dividend. Progressive's payout ratio is sufficient to cover dividend payouts with earnings for the foreseeable future, but CNA Financial's is not.

CNA Financial quarterly revenues are $3.6B, which are smaller than Progressive quarterly revenues of $20.4B. CNA Financial's net income of $274M is lower than Progressive's net income of $2.6B. Notably, CNA Financial's price-to-earnings ratio is 14.61x while Progressive's PE ratio is 19.21x. Generally a lower price-to-earnings ratio signals a stock is trading at a lower multiple of earnings and is a better value. Another key metric is the price-to-sales ratio, which for CNA Financial is 0.92x versus 2.13x for Progressive. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.

ProAssurance has a net margin of 7.67% compared to CNA Financial's net margin of -2.17%. CNA Financial's return on equity of 8.76% beat ProAssurance's return on equity of 3.58%.

CNA Financial has a consensus price target of $45.00, signalling downside risk potential of -6.07%. On the other hand ProAssurance has an analysts' consensus of $22.67 which suggests that it could fall by -2.26%. Given that CNA Financial has more downside risk than ProAssurance, analysts believe ProAssurance is more attractive than CNA Financial.

CNA Financial has a beta of 0.528, which suggesting that the stock is 47.159% less volatile than S&P 500. In comparison ProAssurance has a beta of 0.044, suggesting its less volatile than the S&P 500 by 95.631%.

CNA Financial has a quarterly dividend of $0.46 per share corresponding to a yield of 3.76%. ProAssurance offers a yield of 0% to investors and pays a quarterly dividend of $0.00 per share. CNA Financial pays 106.88% of its earnings as a dividend. ProAssurance pays out -- of its earnings as a dividend.

CNA Financial quarterly revenues are $3.6B, which are larger than ProAssurance quarterly revenues of $268.1M. CNA Financial's net income of $274M is higher than ProAssurance's net income of -$5.8M. Notably, CNA Financial's price-to-earnings ratio is 14.61x while ProAssurance's PE ratio is 28.28x. Generally a lower price-to-earnings ratio signals a stock is trading at a lower multiple of earnings and is a better value. Another key metric is the price-to-sales ratio, which for CNA Financial is 0.92x versus 1.07x for ProAssurance. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.

WR Berkley has a net margin of 7.67% compared to CNA Financial's net margin of 11.84%. CNA Financial's return on equity of 8.76% beat WR Berkley's return on equity of 20.93%.

CNA Financial has a consensus price target of $45.00, signalling downside risk potential of -6.07%. On the other hand WR Berkley has an analysts' consensus of $70.30 which suggests that it could fall by -5.88%. Given that CNA Financial has more downside risk than WR Berkley, analysts believe WR Berkley is more attractive than CNA Financial.

CNA Financial has a beta of 0.528, which suggesting that the stock is 47.159% less volatile than S&P 500. In comparison WR Berkley has a beta of 0.435, suggesting its less volatile than the S&P 500 by 56.478%.

CNA Financial has a quarterly dividend of $0.46 per share corresponding to a yield of 3.76%. WR Berkley offers a yield of 0.88% to investors and pays a quarterly dividend of $0.08 per share. CNA Financial pays 106.88% of its earnings as a dividend. WR Berkley pays out 30.29% of its earnings as a dividend. WR Berkley's payout ratio is sufficient to cover dividend payouts with earnings for the foreseeable future, but CNA Financial's is not.

CNA Financial quarterly revenues are $3.6B, which are larger than WR Berkley quarterly revenues of $3.5B. CNA Financial's net income of $274M is lower than WR Berkley's net income of $417.6M. Notably, CNA Financial's price-to-earnings ratio is 14.61x while WR Berkley's PE ratio is 17.33x. Generally a lower price-to-earnings ratio signals a stock is trading at a lower multiple of earnings and is a better value. Another key metric is the price-to-sales ratio, which for CNA Financial is 0.92x versus 2.15x for WR Berkley. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.