Financials stock comparison

AFL vs WFC: which business are you actually underwriting?

Compare Aflac Incorporated with Wells Fargo & Company using their business models, SEC classifications, fiscal calendars, current primary filings, and the research questions that matter. This is a thesis framework—not a price target or automatic winner.
Sector
Financials
Industry
Different SIC
Shared themes
1
Updated
2026-02-25

AFL vs WFC: quick comparison

Company factAFLWFC
CompanyAflac IncorporatedWells Fargo & Company
ExchangeNYSENYSE
Headquarters—San Francisco, California
Founded—1852
SEC industryAccident & Health InsuranceNational Commercial Banks
Fiscal year-endDecember 31December 31
Latest annual filing10-K · 2026-02-2510-K · 2026-02-24

AFL vs WFC: audited financials

WFC reported about 4.9× the revenue of AFL in the latest audited fiscal year. On profitability, WFC converted a larger share of revenue into net income (25.5% versus 21.2%). Scale and margin are starting facts for the thesis, not the verdict.

MetricAFLWFC
Revenue$17.2B$83.7B
Net income$3.6B$21.3B
Operating cash flow$2.6B−$19.0B
Diluted EPS$6.82$6.26
Net margin21.2%25.5%

AFL: FY ending 2025-12-31 · WFC: FY ending 2025-12-31. Figures as tagged in each issuer's SEC XBRL filing; fiscal calendars may not align.

How the businesses differ

Why this pair belongs in the comparison set

AFL and WFC have different SEC industry classifications, but both map to the maintained Rates & central banks research theme inside the Financials sector. A shared classification or theme makes the pair useful for a defined research question; it does not mean the companies have identical products, economics, or risks.

Aflac Incorporated (AFL)

Aflac sells supplemental health and life insurance, with major operations in the US and Japan.

Wells Fargo & Company (WFC)

Wells Fargo is a major US bank focused on consumer lending, commercial banking, and mortgages. Much of its recent story has centered on operating under and working to exit regulatory restrictions.

The useful starting point is not which ticker has performed better. It is whether the two companies convert the same economic forces into revenue and cash flow in the same way. AFL is classified by the SEC as Accident & Health Insurance, while WFC is classified as National Commercial Banks. The different industry codes are a warning against treating sector membership as proof of identical economics.

Members-only research

What members are reading this month

The thesis, the numbers behind it, and what would break it. Full access is $15 a month.

Read the full research

Which thesis does each company fit?

Use the distinction below to decide which filing deserves deeper work. It is a research routing rule, not a recommendation or prediction.

Study AFL when…

  • US supplemental health and life sales trends and agent distribution productivity
  • Japan segment performance, including product mix shift and yen exchange-rate movement
  • Investment portfolio yield and sensitivity to interest rates
  • Policy persistency (retention) rates across both the US and Japan segments

Study WFC when…

  • The shape of the yield curve and net interest margins
  • Credit quality and loan-loss provisions
  • Regulation and capital requirements
  • Deal activity and market volatility

Shared research themes

Rates & central banks

SEC filing comparison and disclosure evidence

Start with primary filings because fiscal calendars and accounting presentation can make superficially similar quarters incomparable.AFL's fiscal year ends December 31, while WFC's ends December 31. Normalize the reporting periods before comparing growth, margins, capital intensity, or guidance.

The current verified House and Senate snapshot contains 4matched transaction rows for AFLand 27 for WFC. These delayed, range-based disclosures can identify a filing to inspect; they do not establish motive, conviction, or a real-time trading signal.

What this comparison cannot tell you

This page does not contain licensed live prices, a valuation model, earnings estimates, portfolio constraints, or a forecast of future returns. SEC classifications can be broad, company descriptions can lag strategic change, and the latest annual filing may predate a material acquisition or divestiture. Read subsequent quarterly and current reports before making a decision.

A stronger business is not automatically the better stock. Starting valuation, expectations, capital structure, cyclicality, dilution, and the probability of each thesis determine the investment outcome. Use this comparison to frame the work, then verify the numbers in the linked filings and current company disclosures.

AFL vs WFC FAQs

Are AFL and WFC direct competitors?

Aflac Incorporated and Wells Fargo & Company sit in the same Financials sector but have different SEC industry classifications. The comparison is most useful for portfolio role and sector exposure, not as a claim that every product competes directly.

Which is better, AFL or WFC?

There is no context-free winner. Compare the operating exposures, filing evidence, valuation, balance sheet, and risks against the specific thesis you are testing. This page deliberately does not turn a static profile into a buy or sell recommendation.

Does this AFL vs WFC comparison include live prices?

No. Yield Theory does not republish unlicensed real-time market data. The financial figures on this page are the audited annual numbers Aflac Incorporated and Wells Fargo & Company tagged in their SEC XBRL filings. Use a regulated broker or licensed quote provider for current prices and valuation multiples.

Where does the company information come from?

Company classifications, fiscal year-ends, and filing links come from the SEC EDGAR submissions API snapshot refreshed 2026-09-26. Business summaries and research themes are maintained by Yield Theory.

Data snapshot: SEC EDGAR submissions API, refreshed 2026-09-26. Independent educational research; not investment advice.

A comparison is the setup. The thesis is the call.

AFL vs WFC shows how the businesses differ. Membership is the monthly sourced view of who could benefit, what could break, and what evidence matters next. $15/month or $150/year.

$15/mo or $150/yr · cancel future renewals anytime · sources included