vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Aflac (AFL) and Willis Towers Watson (WTW), based on the latest 10-Q / 10-K filings. Click either name above to swap in a different company.
Aflac is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($4.9B vs $2.9B, roughly 1.7× Willis Towers Watson). Aflac runs the higher net margin — 28.3% vs 25.5%, a 2.8% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, Willis Towers Watson posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (-3.5% vs -10.0%). Over the past eight quarters, Willis Towers Watson's revenue compounded faster (12.0% CAGR vs -5.4%).
Aflac Incorporated is an American insurance company and is the largest provider of supplemental insurance in the United States. It was founded in 1955 and is based in Columbus, Georgia. In the U.S., it underwrites a wide range of insurance policies, but is perhaps more known for its payroll deduction insurance coverage, which pays cash benefits when a policyholder has a covered accident or illness. The company states it "provides financial protection to more than 50 million people worldwide".
Willis Towers Watson plc is a British-American multinational advisory, broking and solutions company. Its operations span commercial insurance brokerage and risk advisory, employee benefits and rewards consulting, retirement and actuarial services, and investment advice for pension funds and institutional investors.
AFL vs WTW — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q4 2025 vs Q4 2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $4.9B | $2.9B |
| Net Profit | $1.4B | $735.0M |
| Gross Margin | — | — |
| Operating Margin | 32.3% | 35.3% |
| Net Margin | 28.3% | 25.5% |
| Revenue YoY | -10.0% | -3.5% |
| Net Profit YoY | -27.5% | -41.0% |
| EPS (diluted) | $2.58 | $7.50 |
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 | $4.9B | $2.9B | ||
| Q3 25 | $4.7B | $2.2B | ||
| Q2 25 | $4.2B | $2.2B | ||
| Q1 25 | $3.4B | $2.2B | ||
| Q4 24 | $5.4B | $3.0B | ||
| Q3 24 | $2.9B | $2.2B | ||
| Q2 24 | $5.1B | $2.2B | ||
| Q1 24 | $5.4B | $2.3B |
| Q4 25 | $1.4B | $735.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.6B | $304.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $599.0M | $331.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $29.0M | $235.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.9B | $1.2B | ||
| Q3 24 | $-93.0M | $-1.7B | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.8B | $141.0M | ||
| Q1 24 | $1.9B | $190.0M |
| Q4 25 | 32.3% | 35.3% | ||
| Q3 25 | 42.1% | 18.7% | ||
| Q2 25 | 19.8% | 16.6% | ||
| Q1 25 | 4.3% | 19.8% | ||
| Q4 24 | 39.5% | 30.2% | ||
| Q3 24 | 3.1% | -34.2% | ||
| Q2 24 | 39.3% | 9.6% | ||
| Q1 24 | 39.9% | 12.2% |
| Q4 25 | 28.3% | 25.5% | ||
| Q3 25 | 34.6% | 13.6% | ||
| Q2 25 | 14.4% | 14.9% | ||
| Q1 25 | 0.9% | 10.8% | ||
| Q4 24 | 35.2% | 41.7% | ||
| Q3 24 | -3.2% | -74.8% | ||
| Q2 24 | 34.2% | 6.4% | ||
| Q1 24 | 34.6% | 8.3% |
| Q4 25 | $2.58 | $7.50 | ||
| Q3 25 | $3.08 | $3.11 | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.11 | $3.32 | ||
| Q1 25 | $0.05 | $2.33 | ||
| Q4 24 | $3.45 | $12.29 | ||
| Q3 24 | $-0.17 | $-16.44 | ||
| Q2 24 | $3.10 | $1.36 | ||
| Q1 24 | $3.25 | $1.83 |
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 | $6.2B | $3.2B |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | $9.7B |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $29.5B | $8.0B |
| Total Assets | $116.5B | $29.5B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | 1.21× |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $6.2B | $3.2B | ||
| Q3 25 | $6.8B | $1.9B | ||
| Q2 25 | $7.0B | $2.0B | ||
| Q1 25 | $5.2B | $1.5B | ||
| Q4 24 | $6.2B | $1.9B | ||
| Q3 24 | $5.6B | $1.4B | ||
| Q2 24 | $6.1B | $1.2B | ||
| Q1 24 | $5.1B | $1.9B |
| Q4 25 | — | $9.7B | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $8.6B | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | — | — | ||
| Q1 24 | — | — |
| Q4 25 | $29.5B | $8.0B | ||
| Q3 25 | $28.7B | $7.7B | ||
| Q2 25 | $27.2B | $8.1B | ||
| Q1 25 | $26.3B | $8.1B | ||
| Q4 24 | $26.1B | $7.9B | ||
| Q3 24 | $24.8B | $7.5B | ||
| Q2 24 | $26.0B | $9.3B | ||
| Q1 24 | $23.5B | $9.5B |
| Q4 25 | $116.5B | $29.5B | ||
| Q3 25 | $122.3B | $27.4B | ||
| Q2 25 | $124.7B | $28.5B | ||
| Q1 25 | $120.3B | $28.1B | ||
| Q4 24 | $117.6B | $27.7B | ||
| Q3 24 | $128.4B | $27.2B | ||
| Q2 24 | $120.2B | $29.6B | ||
| Q1 24 | $124.7B | $30.2B |
| Q4 25 | — | 1.21× | ||
| Q3 25 | — | — | ||
| Q2 25 | — | — | ||
| Q1 25 | — | — | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 1.08× | ||
| 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 | $315.0M | $771.0M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | — | $708.0M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | — | 24.6% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue; lower = less reinvestment burden | — | 2.2% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit; >1× = earnings back up with cash | 0.23× | 1.05× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | — | $1.5B |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $315.0M | $771.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.3B | $678.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $399.0M | $361.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $589.0M | $-35.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $333.0M | $599.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.3B | $482.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $255.0M | $407.0M | ||
| Q1 24 | $849.0M | $24.0M |
| Q4 25 | — | $708.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $621.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $303.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $-86.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $543.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $419.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $341.0M | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $-36.0M |
| Q4 25 | — | 24.6% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 27.7% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 13.7% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | -3.9% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 18.2% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 18.7% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 15.4% | ||
| Q1 24 | — | -1.6% |
| Q4 25 | — | 2.2% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 2.5% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 2.6% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 2.3% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 1.9% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 2.8% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 3.0% | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 2.6% |
| Q4 25 | 0.23× | 1.05× | ||
| Q3 25 | 0.76× | 2.23× | ||
| Q2 25 | 0.67× | 1.09× | ||
| Q1 25 | 20.31× | -0.15× | ||
| Q4 24 | 0.18× | 0.48× | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 0.15× | 2.89× | ||
| Q1 24 | 0.45× | 0.13× |
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.
Revenue Breakdown by Segment
AFL
| Aflac Japan | $2.3B | 47% |
| Aflac US | $1.7B | 35% |
| Other | $862.0M | 18% |
WTW
| Health Wealth And Career | $1.7B | 58% |
| GB | $566.0M | 20% |
| Broking | $465.0M | 16% |
| Other | $113.0M | 4% |
| December Thirty One Two Thousand And Twenty Four | $67.0M | 2% |
| IE | $38.0M | 1% |
