vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Chubb Limited (CB) and Hagerty, Inc. (HGTY), based on the latest 10-Q / 10-K filings. Click either name above to swap in a different company.
Chubb Limited is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($15.1B vs $150.8M, roughly 99.9× Hagerty, Inc.). Chubb Limited runs the higher net margin — 21.3% vs 18.9%, a 2.4% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, Hagerty, Inc. posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (30.7% vs 6.3%). Over the past eight quarters, Hagerty, Inc.'s revenue compounded faster (12.1% CAGR vs 8.1%).
Chubb Limited is an American–Swiss company incorporated in Zürich, and listed on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) where it is a component of the S&P 500. Chubb is a global provider of insurance products covering property and casualty, accident and health, reinsurance, and life insurance and is the largest publicly traded property and casualty insurance company in the world. Chubb operates in 55 countries and territories and in the Lloyd's insurance market in London. Clients of Chubb consist...
Hagerty, Inc. is an American automotive lifestyle and membership company, as well as the world's largest provider of specialty insurance for classic vehicles. Hagerty is based in Traverse City, Michigan and also operates in Canada, Germany and the United Kingdom.
CB vs HGTY — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q4 2025 vs Q4 2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $15.1B | $150.8M |
| Net Profit | $3.2B | $28.6M |
| Gross Margin | — | — |
| Operating Margin | 25.0% | 26.3% |
| Net Margin | 21.3% | 18.9% |
| Revenue YoY | 6.3% | 30.7% |
| Net Profit YoY | 24.7% | 238.4% |
| EPS (diluted) | $8.05 | — |
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 | $15.1B | $150.8M | ||
| Q3 25 | $16.1B | $190.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $14.8B | $188.5M | ||
| Q1 25 | $13.4B | $148.4M | ||
| Q4 24 | $14.2B | $115.4M | ||
| Q3 24 | $14.8B | $157.7M | ||
| Q2 24 | $13.8B | $155.6M | ||
| Q1 24 | $12.9B | $120.1M |
| Q4 25 | $3.2B | $28.6M | ||
| Q3 25 | $2.8B | $46.2M | ||
| Q2 25 | $3.0B | $47.2M | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.3B | $27.3M | ||
| Q4 24 | $2.6B | $8.4M | ||
| Q3 24 | $2.3B | $19.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $2.2B | $42.7M | ||
| Q1 24 | $2.1B | $8.2M |
| Q4 25 | 25.0% | 26.3% | ||
| Q3 25 | 24.1% | 18.1% | ||
| Q2 25 | 25.0% | 25.3% | ||
| Q1 25 | 12.5% | 17.3% | ||
| Q4 24 | 22.0% | 5.2% | ||
| Q3 24 | 20.2% | 6.4% | ||
| Q2 24 | 19.6% | 24.5% | ||
| Q1 24 | 20.4% | 10.2% |
| Q4 25 | 21.3% | 18.9% | ||
| Q3 25 | 17.3% | 24.3% | ||
| Q2 25 | 20.0% | 25.0% | ||
| Q1 25 | 10.0% | 18.4% | ||
| Q4 24 | 18.2% | 7.3% | ||
| Q3 24 | 15.7% | 12.1% | ||
| Q2 24 | 16.1% | 27.4% | ||
| Q1 24 | 16.6% | 6.8% |
| Q4 25 | $8.05 | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $6.99 | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $7.35 | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $3.29 | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $6.31 | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $5.70 | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $5.46 | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $5.23 | — |
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 | — | $160.2M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | $15.7B | $177.9M |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $73.8B | $221.3M |
| Total Assets | $272.3B | $2.1B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | 0.21× | 0.80× |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | — | $160.2M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $290.5M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $259.6M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $232.7M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $178.7M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $208.9M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $186.4M | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $131.2M |
| Q4 25 | $15.7B | $177.9M | ||
| Q3 25 | $15.7B | $104.4M | ||
| Q2 25 | $13.5B | $153.4M | ||
| Q1 25 | $14.5B | $132.6M | ||
| Q4 24 | $14.4B | $105.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $14.6B | $122.9M | ||
| Q2 24 | $13.2B | $98.0M | ||
| Q1 24 | $13.2B | $91.5M |
| Q4 25 | $73.8B | $221.3M | ||
| Q3 25 | $71.9B | $211.7M | ||
| Q2 25 | $69.4B | $172.3M | ||
| Q1 25 | $65.7B | $162.9M | ||
| Q4 24 | $64.0B | $150.3M | ||
| Q3 24 | $65.8B | $148.3M | ||
| Q2 24 | $61.0B | $94.4M | ||
| Q1 24 | $60.5B | $93.5M |
| Q4 25 | $272.3B | $2.1B | ||
| Q3 25 | $270.2B | $2.2B | ||
| Q2 25 | $261.6B | $2.0B | ||
| Q1 25 | $251.8B | $1.8B | ||
| Q4 24 | $246.5B | $1.7B | ||
| Q3 24 | $250.6B | $1.8B | ||
| Q2 24 | $238.6B | $1.7B | ||
| Q1 24 | $234.9B | $1.6B |
| Q4 25 | 0.21× | 0.80× | ||
| Q3 25 | 0.22× | 0.49× | ||
| Q2 25 | 0.19× | 0.89× | ||
| Q1 25 | 0.22× | 0.81× | ||
| Q4 24 | 0.22× | 0.70× | ||
| Q3 24 | 0.22× | 0.83× | ||
| Q2 24 | 0.22× | 1.04× | ||
| Q1 24 | 0.22× | 0.98× |
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 | $4.1B | $29.1M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | — | $23.1M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | — | 15.3% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue; lower = less reinvestment burden | — | 4.0% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit; >1× = earnings back up with cash | 1.26× | 1.02× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | — | $194.5M |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $4.1B | $29.1M | ||
| Q3 25 | $3.6B | $92.2M | ||
| Q2 25 | $3.6B | $53.9M | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.6B | $43.8M | ||
| Q4 24 | $4.6B | $-12.6M | ||
| Q3 24 | $4.3B | $67.4M | ||
| Q2 24 | $4.1B | $64.0M | ||
| Q1 24 | $3.2B | $58.2M |
| Q4 25 | — | $23.1M | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $85.2M | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $47.7M | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $38.4M | ||
| Q4 24 | — | $-16.7M | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $62.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $56.6M | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $53.7M |
| Q4 25 | — | 15.3% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 44.9% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 25.3% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 25.9% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | -14.5% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 39.3% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 36.4% | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 44.7% |
| Q4 25 | — | 4.0% | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 3.7% | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 3.3% | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 3.6% | ||
| Q4 24 | — | 3.5% | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 3.4% | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 4.8% | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 3.8% |
| Q4 25 | 1.26× | 1.02× | ||
| Q3 25 | 1.30× | 2.00× | ||
| Q2 25 | 1.20× | 1.14× | ||
| Q1 25 | 1.18× | 1.61× | ||
| Q4 24 | 1.77× | -1.50× | ||
| Q3 24 | 1.86× | 3.55× | ||
| Q2 24 | 1.83× | 1.50× | ||
| Q1 24 | 1.50× | 7.10× |
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.
