At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestALL4.6x
Fastest growthSAFT+13.0%
Side by side · every name on one set of axes
Growth against the P/E multiple. Up and to the right is cheaper and faster — the quality-growth idea in one picture. Points beyond the axis are pinned to the edge and marked off-scale rather than allowed to compress everything else.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
SAFT
ALL
+13.0%B+
Rev
+5.6%C+
22.3xC
P/E
4.6xA
7.8%C+
ROE
46.1%A
1.74B
P/B
1.84B
3.5%B+
Yield
1.9%C+
Winner per row is the stronger grade; where grades tie, the better figure breaks it. A true tie or a missing value shows no highlight.
Insurance - Property & Casualty · market cap $1.5b. Trading near 52-week high of $104.01 — momentum setup, limited technical margin of safety. Revenue growing +13%, comfortably above the S&P median. PEG 0.95 — paying under fair value for the growth rate.
Moat
Financial moat — scale of deposit base / underwriting franchise plus regulatory capital advantages. The largest players compound book value through cycles that erase smaller competitors.
Risk
Trading within 0% of the 52-week high — limited technical margin of safety; a momentum reversal would test conviction. ROE 8% is below the long-run sustainable threshold of ~10% — capital efficiency would need to improve for the equity base to compound at the market rate. Balance-sheet financial — book value, net interest margin, and credit loss provisions are the lever points; a rates regime change or a deterioration in the loan book moves the stock more than EPS does.
Insurance - Property & Casualty · market cap $58.0b. 17% off the 52-week high of $277.22. 22 sell-side analysts rate this a Hold with a mean 1-yr target of $270.55 (implying +18% upside).
Moat
Net margin 19% beats the market median by a meaningful margin — the company is keeping more of every revenue dollar than the average S&P constituent. ROE 46% — top-decile capital efficiency. Either pricing leverage, low capital intensity, or aggressive buybacks; the durability story depends on which. $58.0b market cap gives the company enough scale to absorb fixed costs that subscale competitors can't, without yet being so large that growth has to come from acquisition.
Risk
Balance-sheet financial — book value, net interest margin, and credit loss provisions are the lever points; a rates regime change or a deterioration in the loan book moves the stock more than EPS does.
Verdict — model-derived comparison
Generating verdict… typically 5–10 seconds
Not investment advice. The Bull Rankings publishes a quantitative ranking model and accompanying analysis for general informational purposes only. Nothing on this page is a recommendation to buy, sell, or hold any security; nothing is personalized to your circumstances, risk tolerance, or tax situation. Investing carries the risk of loss — invest at your own risk and consider consulting a licensed financial professional before acting on anything you read here. See terms and methodology for full disclosures.
Common questions
Is ALL or SAFT the better stock?
ALL scores higher: ALL 76.0, SAFT 73.0 out of 100 on the Bull Rankings quality-growth score, which blends business quality, growth and valuation into one number. A higher score means a stronger business at a more reasonable price — it is not a price target or a recommendation.
How are ALL and SAFT scored?
Each carries the same 0–100 quality-growth score used everywhere on the site, built from three pillars — quality (profitability and returns on capital), growth (revenue and earnings), and value (what you pay for them) — combined as a geometric mean, so a weak pillar cannot be papered over by a strong one.
How current is this comparison?
The whole universe is re-scored every trading day after the US market close, so the scores and fundamentals here reflect the latest published edition.