PRU Quote, Financials, Valuation and Earnings

Abacus Global Management has a net margin of 5.22% compared to Prudential Financial's net margin of 10.51%. Prudential Financial's return on equity of 7.43% beat Abacus Global Management's return on equity of -5.84%.

Prudential Financial has a consensus price target of $115.43, signalling upside risk potential of 12.94%. On the other hand Abacus Global Management has an analysts' consensus of $13.30 which suggests that it could grow by 165.47%. Given that Abacus Global Management has higher upside potential than Prudential Financial, analysts believe Abacus Global Management is more attractive than Prudential Financial.

Prudential Financial has a beta of 1.068, which suggesting that the stock is 6.779% 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%.

Prudential Financial has a quarterly dividend of $1.35 per share corresponding to a yield of 5.19%. Abacus Global Management offers a yield of 0% to investors and pays a quarterly dividend of $0.00 per share. Prudential Financial pays 69.34% of its earnings as a dividend. Abacus Global Management pays out -- of its earnings as a dividend. Prudential Financial's payout ratio is sufficient to cover dividend payouts with earnings for the foreseeable future.

Prudential Financial quarterly revenues are $13.5B, which are larger than Abacus Global Management quarterly revenues of $44.1M. Prudential Financial's net income of $707M is higher than Abacus Global Management's net income of $4.6M. Notably, Prudential Financial's price-to-earnings ratio is 16.21x 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 Prudential Financial is 0.60x versus 2.98x for Abacus Global Management. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.

Brighthouse Financial has a net margin of 5.22% compared to Prudential Financial's net margin of -11.55%. Prudential Financial's return on equity of 7.43% beat Brighthouse Financial's return on equity of 12.57%.

Prudential Financial has a consensus price target of $115.43, signalling upside risk potential of 12.94%. On the other hand Brighthouse Financial has an analysts' consensus of $59.44 which suggests that it could grow by 18.25%. Given that Brighthouse Financial has higher upside potential than Prudential Financial, analysts believe Brighthouse Financial is more attractive than Prudential Financial.

Prudential Financial has a beta of 1.068, which suggesting that the stock is 6.779% more volatile than S&P 500. In comparison Brighthouse Financial has a beta of 0.876, suggesting its less volatile than the S&P 500 by 12.372%.

Prudential Financial has a quarterly dividend of $1.35 per share corresponding to a yield of 5.19%. Brighthouse Financial offers a yield of 0% to investors and pays a quarterly dividend of $0.00 per share. Prudential Financial pays 69.34% 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.

Prudential Financial quarterly revenues are $13.5B, which are larger than Brighthouse Financial quarterly revenues of $2.3B. Prudential Financial's net income of $707M is higher than Brighthouse Financial's net income of -$268M. Notably, Prudential Financial's price-to-earnings ratio is 16.21x while Brighthouse Financial's PE ratio is 6.03x. 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 Prudential Financial is 0.60x versus 0.46x for Brighthouse Financial. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.

Citizens has a net margin of 5.22% compared to Prudential Financial's net margin of -2.92%. Prudential Financial's return on equity of 7.43% beat Citizens's return on equity of 4.28%.

Prudential Financial has a consensus price target of $115.43, signalling upside risk potential of 12.94%. On the other hand Citizens has an analysts' consensus of $5.00 which suggests that it could grow by 48.81%. Given that Citizens has higher upside potential than Prudential Financial, analysts believe Citizens is more attractive than Prudential Financial.

Prudential Financial has a beta of 1.068, which suggesting that the stock is 6.779% more volatile than S&P 500. In comparison Citizens has a beta of 0.362, suggesting its less volatile than the S&P 500 by 63.811%.

Prudential Financial has a quarterly dividend of $1.35 per share corresponding to a yield of 5.19%. Citizens offers a yield of 0% to investors and pays a quarterly dividend of $0.00 per share. Prudential Financial pays 69.34% of its earnings as a dividend. Citizens pays out -- of its earnings as a dividend. Prudential Financial's payout ratio is sufficient to cover dividend payouts with earnings for the foreseeable future.

Prudential Financial quarterly revenues are $13.5B, which are larger than Citizens quarterly revenues of $55.7M. Prudential Financial's net income of $707M is higher than Citizens's net income of -$1.6M. Notably, Prudential Financial's price-to-earnings ratio is 16.21x while Citizens's PE ratio is 19.76x. 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 Prudential Financial is 0.60x versus 0.70x for Citizens. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.

MetLife has a net margin of 5.22% compared to Prudential Financial's net margin of 5.17%. Prudential Financial's return on equity of 7.43% beat MetLife's return on equity of 15.75%.

Prudential Financial has a consensus price target of $115.43, signalling upside risk potential of 12.94%. On the other hand MetLife has an analysts' consensus of $93.57 which suggests that it could grow by 22.17%. Given that MetLife has higher upside potential than Prudential Financial, analysts believe MetLife is more attractive than Prudential Financial.

Prudential Financial has a beta of 1.068, which suggesting that the stock is 6.779% more volatile than S&P 500. In comparison MetLife has a beta of 0.852, suggesting its less volatile than the S&P 500 by 14.822%.

Prudential Financial has a quarterly dividend of $1.35 per share corresponding to a yield of 5.19%. MetLife offers a yield of 2.88% to investors and pays a quarterly dividend of $0.57 per share. Prudential Financial pays 69.34% of its earnings as a dividend. MetLife pays out 39.02% of its earnings as a dividend. Both of these payout ratios are sufficient to cover dividend payouts with earnings for the foreseeable future.

Prudential Financial quarterly revenues are $13.5B, which are smaller than MetLife quarterly revenues of $18.3B. Prudential Financial's net income of $707M is lower than MetLife's net income of $945M. Notably, Prudential Financial's price-to-earnings ratio is 16.21x while MetLife's PE ratio is 12.46x. 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 Prudential Financial is 0.60x versus 0.74x for MetLife. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.