UVE Quote, Financials, Valuation and Earnings

Allstate has a net margin of -4.17% compared to Universal Insurance Holdings's net margin of 7.16%. Universal Insurance Holdings's return on equity of 20.24% beat Allstate's return on equity of 23.5%.

Universal Insurance Holdings has a consensus price target of --, signalling upside risk potential of 30.81%. On the other hand Allstate has an analysts' consensus of $223.18 which suggests that it could grow by 15.3%. Given that Universal Insurance Holdings has higher upside potential than Allstate, analysts believe Universal Insurance Holdings is more attractive than Allstate.

Universal Insurance Holdings has a beta of 0.924, which suggesting that the stock is 7.572% less volatile than S&P 500. In comparison Allstate has a beta of 0.504, suggesting its less volatile than the S&P 500 by 49.607%.

Universal Insurance Holdings has a quarterly dividend of $0.29 per share corresponding to a yield of 3.1%. Allstate offers a yield of 1.9% to investors and pays a quarterly dividend of $0.92 per share. Universal Insurance Holdings pays 34.85% of its earnings as a dividend. Allstate pays out -548.94% of its earnings as a dividend. Universal Insurance Holdings's payout ratio is sufficient to cover dividend payouts with earnings for the foreseeable future.

Universal Insurance Holdings quarterly revenues are $387.6M, which are smaller than Allstate quarterly revenues of $16.6B. Universal Insurance Holdings's net income of -$16.2M is lower than Allstate's net income of $1.2B. Notably, Universal Insurance Holdings's price-to-earnings ratio is 8.39x while Allstate's PE ratio is 12.54x. 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 Universal Insurance Holdings is 0.40x versus 0.82x for Allstate. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.

The Hartford Financial Services Group has a net margin of -4.17% compared to Universal Insurance Holdings's net margin of 11.42%. Universal Insurance Holdings's return on equity of 20.24% beat The Hartford Financial Services Group's return on equity of 19.63%.

Universal Insurance Holdings has a consensus price target of --, signalling upside risk potential of 30.81%. On the other hand The Hartford Financial Services Group has an analysts' consensus of $129.29 which suggests that it could grow by 18.11%. Given that Universal Insurance Holdings has higher upside potential than The Hartford Financial Services Group, analysts believe Universal Insurance Holdings is more attractive than The Hartford Financial Services Group.

Universal Insurance Holdings has a beta of 0.924, which suggesting that the stock is 7.572% less volatile than S&P 500. In comparison The Hartford Financial Services Group has a beta of 0.951, suggesting its less volatile than the S&P 500 by 4.912%.

Universal Insurance Holdings has a quarterly dividend of $0.29 per share corresponding to a yield of 3.1%. The Hartford Financial Services Group offers a yield of 1.76% to investors and pays a quarterly dividend of $0.52 per share. Universal Insurance Holdings pays 34.85% of its earnings as a dividend. The Hartford Financial Services Group pays out 21.93% of its earnings as a dividend. Both of these payout ratios are sufficient to cover dividend payouts with earnings for the foreseeable future.

Universal Insurance Holdings quarterly revenues are $387.6M, which are smaller than The Hartford Financial Services Group quarterly revenues of $6.7B. Universal Insurance Holdings's net income of -$16.2M is lower than The Hartford Financial Services Group's net income of $767M. Notably, Universal Insurance Holdings's price-to-earnings ratio is 8.39x while The Hartford Financial Services Group's PE ratio is 10.97x. 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 Universal Insurance Holdings is 0.40x versus 1.27x for The Hartford Financial Services Group. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.

Heritage Insurance Holdings has a net margin of -4.17% compared to Universal Insurance Holdings's net margin of 3.85%. Universal Insurance Holdings's return on equity of 20.24% beat Heritage Insurance Holdings's return on equity of 31.63%.

Universal Insurance Holdings has a consensus price target of --, signalling upside risk potential of 30.81%. On the other hand Heritage Insurance Holdings has an analysts' consensus of $16.00 which suggests that it could grow by 35.36%. Given that Heritage Insurance Holdings has higher upside potential than Universal Insurance Holdings, analysts believe Heritage Insurance Holdings is more attractive than Universal Insurance Holdings.

Universal Insurance Holdings has a beta of 0.924, which suggesting that the stock is 7.572% less volatile than S&P 500. In comparison Heritage Insurance Holdings has a beta of 1.022, suggesting its more volatile than the S&P 500 by 2.248%.

Universal Insurance Holdings has a quarterly dividend of $0.29 per share corresponding to a yield of 3.1%. Heritage Insurance Holdings offers a yield of 0% to investors and pays a quarterly dividend of $0.00 per share. Universal Insurance Holdings pays 34.85% of its earnings as a dividend. Heritage Insurance Holdings pays out 0.02% of its earnings as a dividend. Both of these payout ratios are sufficient to cover dividend payouts with earnings for the foreseeable future.

Universal Insurance Holdings quarterly revenues are $387.6M, which are larger than Heritage Insurance Holdings quarterly revenues of $211.8M. Universal Insurance Holdings's net income of -$16.2M is lower than Heritage Insurance Holdings's net income of $8.2M. Notably, Universal Insurance Holdings's price-to-earnings ratio is 8.39x while Heritage Insurance Holdings's PE ratio is 4.73x. 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 Universal Insurance Holdings is 0.40x versus 0.44x for Heritage Insurance Holdings. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.

Progressive has a net margin of -4.17% compared to Universal Insurance Holdings's net margin of 11.84%. Universal Insurance Holdings's return on equity of 20.24% beat Progressive's return on equity of 36.88%.

Universal Insurance Holdings has a consensus price target of --, signalling upside risk potential of 30.81%. On the other hand Progressive has an analysts' consensus of $276.5625 which suggests that it could grow by 15.25%. Given that Universal Insurance Holdings has higher upside potential than Progressive, analysts believe Universal Insurance Holdings is more attractive than Progressive.

Universal Insurance Holdings has a beta of 0.924, which suggesting that the stock is 7.572% 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 61.988%.

Universal Insurance Holdings has a quarterly dividend of $0.29 per share corresponding to a yield of 3.1%. Progressive offers a yield of 0.48% to investors and pays a quarterly dividend of $0.10 per share. Universal Insurance Holdings pays 34.85% of its earnings as a dividend. Progressive pays out 7.11% of its earnings as a dividend. Both of these payout ratios are sufficient to cover dividend payouts with earnings for the foreseeable future.

Universal Insurance Holdings quarterly revenues are $387.6M, which are smaller than Progressive quarterly revenues of $19.7B. Universal Insurance Holdings's net income of -$16.2M is lower than Progressive's net income of $2.3B. Notably, Universal Insurance Holdings's price-to-earnings ratio is 8.39x while Progressive's PE ratio is 17.44x. 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 Universal Insurance Holdings is 0.40x versus 1.96x for Progressive. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.