Compare price, profitability, solvency, and SEC-reported financials side by side—before deciding which assumptions deserve a closer look.
Decision snapshot: EG stock price vs CINF: inconclusive Relative valuation is incomplete for this pair. Review the available filing metrics before drawing a conclusion.
Quick read
Each company valued on the other's multiple, then compared with the market price.
Implied fair value · at CINF's multiple
Needs CINF P/E.
Implied fair value · at EG's multiple
Needs EG P/E.
Price unavailable
Metric by metric
Where each company leads, and how wide the gap is.
Growth lag
Reported gross margin
Operating income + D&A
Lower is better
Not comparable
Lower leverage
Statements
Annual statements in reported currencies, with calculations and source evidence.
Values retain reported currencies and share bases. Select a figure to inspect its period, calculation and filing inputs. Differences require compatible units and periods.
Explore enterprise value and market valuation multiples in the valuation sections.
Trendline
Eight period-end years of reported revenue, earnings, and margins. Periods and currencies are shown with the data.
Price framework
USD market cap plus reported borrowing debt, less cash and equivalents. This EV proxy excludes investments, preferred stock and noncontrolling-interest adjustments.
Complete market value, debt and cash evidence is required for enterprise value.
Complete market value, debt and cash evidence is required for enterprise value.
Price framework
The same filing-backed model used on each company's valuation page, with company-specific inputs and calculated scenarios.
EVEREST GROUP, LTD. · implied price per share
Five annual free-cash-flow observations are required for the filing-backed baseline.
CINCINNATI FINANCIAL CORPORATION · implied price per share
Debt and bridge-cash inputs are required to translate enterprise value into equity value.
Balance sheet health
Inspect reported liquidity and leverage alongside historical financial-health checks.
Financial strength on a 0–9 scale.
Bankruptcy-risk signal from balance sheet and earnings power.
Not enough data to score either balance sheet.
Comparable set
Where the pair sits against the wider comparable set.
Keep comparing
Open adjacent comparisons from the same industry to pressure-test the read across multiple pairs.
TRAVELERS COMPANIES, INC.
EG vs TRV
RENAISSANCERE HOLDINGS LTD
EG vs RNR
ARCH CAPITAL GROUP LTD.
EG vs ACGL
MARKEL GROUP INC.
EG vs MKL
BROWN & BROWN, INC.
EG vs BRO
HANOVER INSURANCE GROUP, INC.
EG vs THG
ALLSTATE CORP
EG vs ALL
HARTFORD FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP, INC.
EG vs HIG
BERKLEY W R CORP
EG vs WRB
Chubb Ltd
EG vs CB
Cash excludes investments. EBITDA is an operating-income-plus-D&A proxy. Missing borrowing categories remain unavailable; select a value to inspect its inputs.
LLM-powered synthesis
An explanation of the financial evidence. Check its snapshot date against the figures above.
This explanation uses an earlier data snapshot or evidence version. Review its generation date and the current figures, or refresh after signing in.
If you believe EG’s lower earnings and revenue multiples will re-rate despite weaker growth and margins versus CINF, then a cautious buy makes sense because EG trades at 9.8x P/E and 0.8x P/S while the model still shows 19.3% upside.
EG trades at 9.8x P/E versus CINF at 11.7x, so it looks cheaper on earnings despite the model implying 19.3% upside to $443.01. However, the broader multiple set is mixed: EG is cheaper on P/S and EV/Revenue, but more expensive on EV/EBITDA.
Supporting Metrics
