vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Aflac (AFL) and Morgan Stanley (MS), based on the latest 10-Q / 10-K filings. Click either name above to swap in a different company.
Morgan Stanley is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($17.9B vs $4.9B, roughly 3.7× Aflac). Aflac runs the higher net margin — 28.3% vs 24.6%, a 3.8% gap on every dollar of revenue.
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".
Morgan Stanley is an American multinational investment bank and financial services company headquartered at 1585 Broadway in Midtown Manhattan, New York City. With offices in 42 countries and more than 80,000 employees, the firm's clients include corporations, governments, institutions, and individuals. Morgan Stanley ranked No. 61 in the 2023 Fortune 500 list of the largest United States corporations by total revenue and in the same year ranked No. 30 in the Forbes Global 2000.
AFL vs MS — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q4 2025 vs Q4 2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $4.9B | $17.9B |
| Net Profit | $1.4B | $4.4B |
| Gross Margin | — | — |
| Operating Margin | 32.3% | 32.2% |
| Net Margin | 28.3% | 24.6% |
| Revenue YoY | -10.0% | — |
| Net Profit YoY | -27.5% | — |
| EPS (diluted) | $2.58 | $2.68 |
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 | $17.9B | ||
| Q3 25 | $4.7B | $18.2B | ||
| Q2 25 | $4.2B | $16.8B | ||
| Q1 25 | $3.4B | $17.7B | ||
| Q4 24 | $5.4B | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $2.9B | $15.4B | ||
| Q2 24 | $5.1B | $15.0B | ||
| Q1 24 | $5.4B | $15.1B |
| Q4 25 | $1.4B | $4.4B | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.6B | $4.6B | ||
| Q2 25 | $599.0M | $3.5B | ||
| Q1 25 | $29.0M | $4.3B | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.9B | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $-93.0M | $3.2B | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.8B | $3.1B | ||
| Q1 24 | $1.9B | $3.4B |
| Q4 25 | 32.3% | 32.2% | ||
| Q3 25 | 42.1% | 33.1% | ||
| Q2 25 | 19.8% | 27.5% | ||
| Q1 25 | 4.3% | 31.3% | ||
| Q4 24 | 39.5% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 3.1% | 27.4% | ||
| Q2 24 | 39.3% | 27.1% | ||
| Q1 24 | 39.9% | 29.0% |
| Q4 25 | 28.3% | 24.6% | ||
| Q3 25 | 34.6% | 25.3% | ||
| Q2 25 | 14.4% | 21.1% | ||
| Q1 25 | 0.9% | 24.3% | ||
| Q4 24 | 35.2% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | -3.2% | 20.7% | ||
| Q2 24 | 34.2% | 20.5% | ||
| Q1 24 | 34.6% | 22.5% |
| Q4 25 | $2.58 | $2.68 | ||
| Q3 25 | $3.08 | $2.80 | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.11 | $2.13 | ||
| Q1 25 | $0.05 | $2.60 | ||
| Q4 24 | $3.45 | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $-0.17 | $1.88 | ||
| Q2 24 | $3.10 | $1.82 | ||
| Q1 24 | $3.25 | $2.02 |
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 | $111.7B |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | $341.7B |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $29.5B | $111.6B |
| Total Assets | $116.5B | $1420.3B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | 3.06× |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $6.2B | $111.7B | ||
| Q3 25 | $6.8B | $103.7B | ||
| Q2 25 | $7.0B | $109.1B | ||
| Q1 25 | $5.2B | $90.7B | ||
| Q4 24 | $6.2B | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $5.6B | $91.1B | ||
| Q2 24 | $6.1B | $90.2B | ||
| Q1 24 | $5.1B | $102.3B |
| Q4 25 | — | $341.7B | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $324.1B | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $320.1B | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $297.0B | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $291.2B | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $269.9B | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $266.1B |
| Q4 25 | $29.5B | $111.6B | ||
| Q3 25 | $28.7B | $110.0B | ||
| Q2 25 | $27.2B | $108.2B | ||
| Q1 25 | $26.3B | $106.8B | ||
| Q4 24 | $26.1B | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $24.8B | $103.6B | ||
| Q2 24 | $26.0B | $100.7B | ||
| Q1 24 | $23.5B | $99.2B |
| Q4 25 | $116.5B | $1420.3B | ||
| Q3 25 | $122.3B | $1364.8B | ||
| Q2 25 | $124.7B | $1353.9B | ||
| Q1 25 | $120.3B | $1300.3B | ||
| Q4 24 | $117.6B | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $128.4B | $1258.0B | ||
| Q2 24 | $120.2B | $1212.4B | ||
| Q1 24 | $124.7B | $1228.5B |
| Q4 25 | — | 3.06× | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 2.95× | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 2.96× | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 2.78× | ||
| Q4 24 | — | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 2.81× | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 2.68× | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 2.68× |
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 | $-2.4B |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | — | — |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | — | — |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue; lower = less reinvestment burden | — | — |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit; >1× = earnings back up with cash | 0.23× | -0.55× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | — | — |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $315.0M | $-2.4B | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.3B | $-3.3B | ||
| Q2 25 | $399.0M | $11.8B | ||
| Q1 25 | $589.0M | $-24.0B | ||
| Q4 24 | $333.0M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.3B | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $255.0M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $849.0M | $4.4B |
| Q4 25 | 0.23× | -0.55× | ||
| Q3 25 | 0.76× | -0.72× | ||
| Q2 25 | 0.67× | 3.34× | ||
| Q1 25 | 20.31× | -5.56× | ||
| Q4 24 | 0.18× | — | ||
| Q3 24 | — | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 0.15× | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 0.45× | 1.28× |
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% |
MS
Segment breakdown not available.
