vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of American International Group (AIG) and W. R. Berkley Corporation (WRB), based on the latest 10-Q / 10-K filings. Click either name above to swap in a different company.
American International Group is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($6.5B vs $3.7B, roughly 1.8× W. R. Berkley Corporation). W. R. Berkley Corporation runs the higher net margin — 11.2% vs 12.1%, a 0.9% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, American International Group posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (380.9% vs 1.5%). Over the past eight quarters, W. R. Berkley Corporation's revenue compounded faster (6.9% CAGR vs -27.8%).
American International Group, Inc. offers insurance products for commercial, institutional, and individual customers in North America and internationally. The company's General Insurance segment provides general liability, environmental, commercial automobile liability, workers' compensation, casualty, and crisis management insurance products; commercial, industrial, and energy-related property insurance; and aerospace, political risk, trade credit, portfolio solutions, crop, and marine insur...
William Robert Berkley is the founder and current chairman of W. R. Berkley Corporation and the chairman of the New York University Board of Trustees.
AIG vs WRB — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q4 2025 vs Q4 2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $6.5B | $3.7B |
| Net Profit | $735.0M | $449.5M |
| Gross Margin | — | — |
| Operating Margin | 10.1% | 15.4% |
| Net Margin | 11.2% | 12.1% |
| Revenue YoY | 380.9% | 1.5% |
| Net Profit YoY | -18.2% | -22.0% |
| EPS (diluted) | $1.36 | $1.13 |
Green = leading value per metric. Periods may differ when fiscal calendars don't align — see 8-quarter trend below.
8-Quarter Revenue & Profit Trend
Side-by-side quarterly history — bar widths are scaled to the larger of the two companies so you can eyeball the size gap and growth trajectory without doing math. Quarters aligned by calendar period (report date) so offset fiscal years line up.
| Q4 25 | $6.5B | $3.7B | ||
| Q3 25 | $6.4B | $3.8B | ||
| Q2 25 | $7.1B | $3.7B | ||
| Q1 25 | $6.8B | $3.5B | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.4B | $3.7B | ||
| Q3 24 | $6.8B | $3.4B | ||
| Q2 24 | $6.6B | $3.3B | ||
| Q1 24 | $12.6B | $3.3B |
| Q4 25 | $735.0M | $449.5M | ||
| Q3 25 | $519.0M | $511.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.1B | $401.3M | ||
| Q1 25 | $698.0M | $417.6M | ||
| Q4 24 | $898.0M | $576.1M | ||
| Q3 24 | $459.0M | $365.6M | ||
| Q2 24 | $-4.0B | $371.9M | ||
| Q1 24 | $1.2B | $442.5M |
| Q4 25 | 10.1% | 15.4% | ||
| Q3 25 | 11.2% | 17.2% | ||
| Q2 25 | 21.8% | 14.2% | ||
| Q1 25 | 14.2% | 15.2% | ||
| Q4 24 | 40.6% | 19.9% | ||
| Q3 24 | 9.6% | 14.0% | ||
| Q2 24 | 9.4% | 14.7% | ||
| Q1 24 | 16.3% | 17.6% |
| Q4 25 | 11.2% | 12.1% | ||
| Q3 25 | 8.2% | 13.6% | ||
| Q2 25 | 16.1% | 10.9% | ||
| Q1 25 | 10.3% | 11.8% | ||
| Q4 24 | 65.9% | 15.7% | ||
| Q3 24 | 6.8% | 10.8% | ||
| Q2 24 | -60.6% | 11.2% | ||
| Q1 24 | 9.7% | 13.6% |
| Q4 25 | $1.36 | $1.13 | ||
| Q3 25 | $0.93 | $1.28 | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.98 | $1.00 | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.16 | $1.04 | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.34 | $0.89 | ||
| Q3 24 | $0.71 | $0.91 | ||
| Q2 24 | $-5.96 | $0.92 | ||
| Q1 24 | $1.74 | $1.64 |
Balance Sheet & Financial Strength
Snapshot of each company's liquidity, leverage and book value from the latest filing — the kind of financial-strength check premium terminals charge for.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Cash + ST InvestmentsLiquidity on hand | — | $2.5B |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | $9.2B | — |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $41.1B | $9.7B |
| Total Assets | $161.3B | $44.1B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | 0.22× | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | — | $2.5B | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $2.4B | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $2.0B | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $1.7B | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $2.0B | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $1.6B | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $1.6B | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $1.2B |
| Q4 25 | $9.2B | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $8.9B | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — | ||
| Q1 24 | — | — |
| Q4 25 | $41.1B | $9.7B | ||
| Q3 25 | $41.1B | $9.8B | ||
| Q2 25 | $41.5B | $9.3B | ||
| Q1 25 | $41.4B | $8.9B | ||
| Q4 24 | $42.5B | $8.4B | ||
| Q3 24 | $45.0B | $8.4B | ||
| Q2 24 | $44.4B | $7.8B | ||
| Q1 24 | $43.4B | $7.8B |
| Q4 25 | $161.3B | $44.1B | ||
| Q3 25 | $163.4B | $43.7B | ||
| Q2 25 | $166.0B | $42.7B | ||
| Q1 25 | $161.9B | $41.3B | ||
| Q4 24 | $161.3B | $40.6B | ||
| Q3 24 | $169.4B | $40.4B | ||
| Q2 24 | $167.9B | $38.9B | ||
| Q1 24 | $544.1B | $37.9B |
| Q4 25 | 0.22× | — | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 0.21× | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — | ||
| Q1 24 | — | — |
Cash Flow & Capital Efficiency
How much cash each business actually produces after reinvestment. Net income can be massaged; cash flow is harder to fake.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Operating Cash FlowLast quarter | $636.0M | $995.1M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | — | — |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | — | — |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue; lower = less reinvestment burden | — | — |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit; >1× = earnings back up with cash | 0.87× | 2.21× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $636.0M | $995.1M | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.3B | $1.1B | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.4B | $703.8M | ||
| Q1 25 | $-56.0M | $743.8M | ||
| Q4 24 | $125.0M | $810.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.7B | $1.2B | ||
| Q2 24 | $930.0M | $881.3M | ||
| Q1 24 | $519.0M | $746.2M |
| Q4 25 | 0.87× | 2.21× | ||
| Q3 25 | 2.59× | 2.23× | ||
| Q2 25 | 1.22× | 1.75× | ||
| Q1 25 | -0.08× | 1.78× | ||
| Q4 24 | 0.14× | 1.41× | ||
| Q3 24 | 3.70× | 3.39× | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 2.37× | ||
| Q1 24 | 0.43× | 1.69× |
Financial Flow Comparison
Sankey diagram of revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company. Charts shown full-width and stacked so both segment hierarchies are readable side-by-side on desktop and mobile.
