CNA Quote, Financials, Valuation and Earnings

Loews has a net margin of 0.58% compared to CNA Financial's net margin of 4.18%. CNA Financial's return on equity of 9.46% beat Loews's return on equity of 8.14%.

CNA Financial has a consensus price target of $43.00, signalling downside risk potential of -9.93%. On the other hand Loews has an analysts' consensus of -- which suggests that it could fall by -62.44%. 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 0.473, which suggesting that the stock is 52.703% less volatile than S&P 500. In comparison Loews has a beta of 0.604, suggesting its less volatile than the S&P 500 by 39.612%.

CNA Financial has a quarterly dividend of $2.46 per share corresponding to a yield of 3.73%. Loews offers a yield of 0.29% 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 $4.5B. CNA Financial's net income of $21M is lower than Loews's net income of $187M. Notably, CNA Financial's price-to-earnings ratio is 13.56x while Loews's PE ratio is 13.31x. 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 0.93x versus 1.09x for Loews. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.

Progressive has a net margin of 0.58% compared to CNA Financial's net margin of 11.63%. CNA Financial's return on equity of 9.46% beat Progressive's return on equity of 35.88%.

CNA Financial has a consensus price target of $43.00, signalling downside risk potential of -9.93%. On the other hand Progressive has an analysts' consensus of $291.8235 which suggests that it could grow by 5.94%. 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 0.473, which suggesting that the stock is 52.703% less volatile than S&P 500. In comparison Progressive has a beta of 0.380, suggesting its less volatile than the S&P 500 by 61.975%.

CNA Financial has a quarterly dividend of $2.46 per share corresponding to a yield of 3.73%. Progressive offers a yield of 1.78% 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 $20.3B. CNA Financial's net income of $21M is lower than Progressive's net income of $2.4B. Notably, CNA Financial's price-to-earnings ratio is 13.56x while Progressive's PE ratio is 19.11x. 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 0.93x versus 2.15x for Progressive. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.

ProAssurance has a net margin of 0.58% compared to CNA Financial's net margin of 5.69%. CNA Financial's return on equity of 9.46% beat ProAssurance's return on equity of 4.55%.

CNA Financial has a consensus price target of $43.00, signalling downside risk potential of -9.93%. On the other hand ProAssurance has an analysts' consensus of $20.33 which suggests that it could fall by -12.7%. Given that ProAssurance has more downside risk than CNA Financial, analysts believe CNA Financial is more attractive than ProAssurance.

CNA Financial has a beta of 0.473, which suggesting that the stock is 52.703% less volatile than S&P 500. In comparison ProAssurance has a beta of -0.088, suggesting its less volatile than the S&P 500 by 108.754%.

CNA Financial has a quarterly dividend of $2.46 per share corresponding to a yield of 3.73%. 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 $284.3M. CNA Financial's net income of $21M is higher than ProAssurance's net income of $16.2M. Notably, CNA Financial's price-to-earnings ratio is 13.56x while ProAssurance's PE ratio is 22.83x. 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 0.93x versus 1.06x for ProAssurance. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.

WR Berkley has a net margin of 0.58% compared to CNA Financial's net margin of 15.48%. CNA Financial's return on equity of 9.46% beat WR Berkley's return on equity of 22.01%.

CNA Financial has a consensus price target of $43.00, signalling downside risk potential of -9.93%. On the other hand WR Berkley has an analysts' consensus of $67.54 which suggests that it could fall by -1.33%. 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 0.473, which suggesting that the stock is 52.703% less volatile than S&P 500. In comparison WR Berkley has a beta of 0.405, suggesting its less volatile than the S&P 500 by 59.537%.

CNA Financial has a quarterly dividend of $2.46 per share corresponding to a yield of 3.73%. WR Berkley offers a yield of 0.47% 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 smaller than WR Berkley quarterly revenues of $3.7B. CNA Financial's net income of $21M is lower than WR Berkley's net income of $576.1M. Notably, CNA Financial's price-to-earnings ratio is 13.56x while WR Berkley's PE ratio is 15.69x. 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 0.93x versus 2.01x for WR Berkley. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.