MFC Quote, Financials, Valuation and Earnings

Abacus Global Management has a net margin of 29.27% compared to Manulife Financial's net margin of -18.21%. Manulife Financial's return on equity of 11.03% beat Abacus Global Management's return on equity of -5.9%.

Manulife Financial has a consensus price target of $27.40, signalling downside risk potential of -12.48%. On the other hand Abacus Global Management has an analysts' consensus of $13.60 which suggests that it could grow by 64.65%. Given that Abacus Global Management has higher upside potential than Manulife Financial, analysts believe Abacus Global Management is more attractive than Manulife Financial.

Manulife Financial has a beta of 1.003, which suggesting that the stock is 0.32399999999999% more volatile than S&P 500. In comparison Abacus Global Management has a beta of 0.000, suggesting its less volatile than the S&P 500 by 100%.

Manulife Financial has a quarterly dividend of $0.31 per share corresponding to a yield of 3.78%. Abacus Global Management offers a yield of 0% to investors and pays a quarterly dividend of $0.00 per share. Manulife Financial pays 56.1% of its earnings as a dividend. Abacus Global Management pays out -- of its earnings as a dividend. Manulife Financial's payout ratio is sufficient to cover dividend payouts with earnings for the foreseeable future.

Manulife Financial quarterly revenues are $4.1B, which are larger than Abacus Global Management quarterly revenues of $28.1M. Manulife Financial's net income of $1.2B is higher than Abacus Global Management's net income of -$5.1M. Notably, Manulife Financial's price-to-earnings ratio is 15.15x while Abacus Global Management's PE ratio is 70.19x. 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 Manulife Financial is 1.68x versus 5.29x for Abacus Global Management. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.

Brighthouse Financial has a net margin of 29.27% compared to Manulife Financial's net margin of 62.3%. Manulife Financial's return on equity of 11.03% beat Brighthouse Financial's return on equity of 8.05%.

Manulife Financial has a consensus price target of $27.40, signalling downside risk potential of -12.48%. On the other hand Brighthouse Financial has an analysts' consensus of $59.33 which suggests that it could grow by 3.01%. Given that Brighthouse Financial has higher upside potential than Manulife Financial, analysts believe Brighthouse Financial is more attractive than Manulife Financial.

Manulife Financial has a beta of 1.003, which suggesting that the stock is 0.32399999999999% more volatile than S&P 500. In comparison Brighthouse Financial has a beta of 0.958, suggesting its less volatile than the S&P 500 by 4.233%.

Manulife Financial has a quarterly dividend of $0.31 per share corresponding to a yield of 3.78%. Brighthouse Financial offers a yield of 0% to investors and pays a quarterly dividend of $0.00 per share. Manulife Financial pays 56.1% of its earnings as a dividend. Brighthouse Financial pays out 26.29% of its earnings as a dividend. Both of these payout ratios are sufficient to cover dividend payouts with earnings for the foreseeable future.

Manulife Financial quarterly revenues are $4.1B, which are larger than Brighthouse Financial quarterly revenues of $1.1B. Manulife Financial's net income of $1.2B is higher than Brighthouse Financial's net income of $671M. Notably, Manulife Financial's price-to-earnings ratio is 15.15x while Brighthouse Financial's PE ratio is 11.16x. 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 Manulife Financial is 1.68x versus -- for Brighthouse Financial. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.

Lincoln National has a net margin of 29.27% compared to Manulife Financial's net margin of 33.18%. Manulife Financial's return on equity of 11.03% beat Lincoln National's return on equity of 41.29%.

Manulife Financial has a consensus price target of $27.40, signalling downside risk potential of -12.48%. On the other hand Lincoln National has an analysts' consensus of $36.91 which suggests that it could grow by 12.08%. Given that Lincoln National has higher upside potential than Manulife Financial, analysts believe Lincoln National is more attractive than Manulife Financial.

Manulife Financial has a beta of 1.003, which suggesting that the stock is 0.32399999999999% more volatile than S&P 500. In comparison Lincoln National has a beta of 1.421, suggesting its more volatile than the S&P 500 by 42.054%.

Manulife Financial has a quarterly dividend of $0.31 per share corresponding to a yield of 3.78%. Lincoln National offers a yield of 5.47% to investors and pays a quarterly dividend of $0.45 per share. Manulife Financial pays 56.1% of its earnings as a dividend. Lincoln National pays out 12.15% of its earnings as a dividend. Both of these payout ratios are sufficient to cover dividend payouts with earnings for the foreseeable future.

Manulife Financial quarterly revenues are $4.1B, which are smaller than Lincoln National quarterly revenues of $5.1B. Manulife Financial's net income of $1.2B is lower than Lincoln National's net income of $1.7B. Notably, Manulife Financial's price-to-earnings ratio is 15.15x while Lincoln National's PE ratio is 1.79x. 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 Manulife Financial is 1.68x versus 0.32x for Lincoln National. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.

Pineapple Financial has a net margin of 29.27% compared to Manulife Financial's net margin of -13.04%. Manulife Financial's return on equity of 11.03% beat Pineapple Financial's return on equity of -232.14%.

Manulife Financial has a consensus price target of $27.40, signalling downside risk potential of -12.48%. On the other hand Pineapple Financial has an analysts' consensus of $5.00 which suggests that it could grow by 3837.01%. Given that Pineapple Financial has higher upside potential than Manulife Financial, analysts believe Pineapple Financial is more attractive than Manulife Financial.

Manulife Financial has a beta of 1.003, which suggesting that the stock is 0.32399999999999% more volatile than S&P 500. In comparison Pineapple Financial has a beta of 0.000, suggesting its less volatile than the S&P 500 by 100%.

Manulife Financial has a quarterly dividend of $0.31 per share corresponding to a yield of 3.78%. Pineapple Financial offers a yield of 0% to investors and pays a quarterly dividend of $0.00 per share. Manulife Financial pays 56.1% of its earnings as a dividend. Pineapple Financial pays out -- of its earnings as a dividend. Manulife Financial's payout ratio is sufficient to cover dividend payouts with earnings for the foreseeable future.

Manulife Financial quarterly revenues are $4.1B, which are larger than Pineapple Financial quarterly revenues of $4.6M. Manulife Financial's net income of $1.2B is higher than Pineapple Financial's net income of -$595.5K. Notably, Manulife Financial's price-to-earnings ratio is 15.15x while Pineapple Financial's PE ratio is --. 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 Manulife Financial is 1.68x versus 0.04x for Pineapple Financial. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.