BHF Quote, Financials, Valuation and Earnings

Abacus Global Management has a net margin of -11.55% compared to Brighthouse Financial's net margin of 10.51%. Brighthouse Financial's return on equity of 12.57% beat Abacus Global Management's return on equity of -5.84%.

Brighthouse Financial has a consensus price target of $59.44, signalling upside risk potential of 25.62%. On the other hand Abacus Global Management has an analysts' consensus of $13.30 which suggests that it could grow by 173.66%. Given that Abacus Global Management has higher upside potential than Brighthouse Financial, analysts believe Abacus Global Management is more attractive than Brighthouse Financial.

Brighthouse Financial has a beta of 0.876, which suggesting that the stock is 12.372% less 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%.

Brighthouse Financial has a quarterly dividend of $0.00 per share corresponding to a yield of 0%. Abacus Global Management offers a yield of 0% to investors and pays a quarterly dividend of $0.00 per share. Brighthouse Financial pays 26.29% of its earnings as a dividend. Abacus Global Management pays out -- of its earnings as a dividend. Brighthouse Financial's payout ratio is sufficient to cover dividend payouts with earnings for the foreseeable future.

Brighthouse Financial quarterly revenues are $2.3B, which are larger than Abacus Global Management quarterly revenues of $44.1M. Brighthouse Financial's net income of -$268M is lower than Abacus Global Management's net income of $4.6M. Notably, Brighthouse Financial's price-to-earnings ratio is 5.67x 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 Brighthouse Financial is 0.43x versus 2.89x for Abacus Global Management. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.

Citizens has a net margin of -11.55% compared to Brighthouse Financial's net margin of -2.92%. Brighthouse Financial's return on equity of 12.57% beat Citizens's return on equity of 4.28%.

Brighthouse Financial has a consensus price target of $59.44, signalling upside risk potential of 25.62%. On the other hand Citizens has an analysts' consensus of $5.00 which suggests that it could grow by 51.52%. Given that Citizens has higher upside potential than Brighthouse Financial, analysts believe Citizens is more attractive than Brighthouse Financial.

Brighthouse Financial has a beta of 0.876, which suggesting that the stock is 12.372% less 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%.

Brighthouse Financial has a quarterly dividend of $0.00 per share corresponding to a yield of 0%. Citizens offers a yield of 0% to investors and pays a quarterly dividend of $0.00 per share. Brighthouse Financial pays 26.29% of its earnings as a dividend. Citizens pays out -- of its earnings as a dividend. Brighthouse Financial's payout ratio is sufficient to cover dividend payouts with earnings for the foreseeable future.

Brighthouse Financial quarterly revenues are $2.3B, which are larger than Citizens quarterly revenues of $55.7M. Brighthouse Financial's net income of -$268M is lower than Citizens's net income of -$1.6M. Notably, Brighthouse Financial's price-to-earnings ratio is 5.67x while Citizens's PE ratio is 19.41x. 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 Brighthouse Financial is 0.43x versus 0.69x for Citizens. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.

Genworth Financial has a net margin of -11.55% compared to Brighthouse Financial's net margin of 3.04%. Brighthouse Financial's return on equity of 12.57% beat Genworth Financial's return on equity of 2.3%.

Brighthouse Financial has a consensus price target of $59.44, signalling upside risk potential of 25.62%. On the other hand Genworth Financial has an analysts' consensus of $9.50 which suggests that it could grow by 30.85%. Given that Genworth Financial has higher upside potential than Brighthouse Financial, analysts believe Genworth Financial is more attractive than Brighthouse Financial.

Brighthouse Financial has a beta of 0.876, which suggesting that the stock is 12.372% less volatile than S&P 500. In comparison Genworth Financial has a beta of 1.056, suggesting its more volatile than the S&P 500 by 5.621%.

Brighthouse Financial has a quarterly dividend of $0.00 per share corresponding to a yield of 0%. Genworth Financial offers a yield of 0% to investors and pays a quarterly dividend of $0.00 per share. Brighthouse Financial pays 26.29% of its earnings as a dividend. Genworth Financial pays out -- of its earnings as a dividend. Brighthouse Financial's payout ratio is sufficient to cover dividend payouts with earnings for the foreseeable future.

Brighthouse Financial quarterly revenues are $2.3B, which are larger than Genworth Financial quarterly revenues of $1.8B. Brighthouse Financial's net income of -$268M is lower than Genworth Financial's net income of $54M. Notably, Brighthouse Financial's price-to-earnings ratio is 5.67x while Genworth Financial's PE ratio is 14.82x. 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 Brighthouse Financial is 0.43x versus 0.44x for Genworth Financial. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.

Lincoln National has a net margin of -11.55% compared to Brighthouse Financial's net margin of -15.3%. Brighthouse Financial's return on equity of 12.57% beat Lincoln National's return on equity of 16.26%.

Brighthouse Financial has a consensus price target of $59.44, signalling upside risk potential of 25.62%. On the other hand Lincoln National has an analysts' consensus of $38.91 which suggests that it could grow by 16.6%. Given that Brighthouse Financial has higher upside potential than Lincoln National, analysts believe Brighthouse Financial is more attractive than Lincoln National.

Brighthouse Financial has a beta of 0.876, which suggesting that the stock is 12.372% less volatile than S&P 500. In comparison Lincoln National has a beta of 1.399, suggesting its more volatile than the S&P 500 by 39.926%.

Brighthouse Financial has a quarterly dividend of $0.00 per share corresponding to a yield of 0%. Lincoln National offers a yield of 5.39% to investors and pays a quarterly dividend of $0.45 per share. Brighthouse Financial pays 26.29% 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.

Brighthouse Financial quarterly revenues are $2.3B, which are smaller than Lincoln National quarterly revenues of $4.7B. Brighthouse Financial's net income of -$268M is higher than Lincoln National's net income of -$722M. Notably, Brighthouse Financial's price-to-earnings ratio is 5.67x while Lincoln National's PE ratio is 4.74x. 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 Brighthouse Financial is 0.43x versus 0.31x for Lincoln National. Usually stocks with elevated PS ratios are considered overvalued.