Computed head-to-head · 6 dimensions
MET vs WFC
MetLife, Inc. versus Wells Fargo & Company — yield, safety, growth trend, cost, scale, and tax treatment.
MET and WFC are evenly matched (2–2 across six dimensions) — the right pick comes down to which dimension you weight most.
Neither MET nor WFC wins outright — the two are nearly equivalent across all 6 dimensions, making the choice largely a matter of which account you hold them in and personal preference on yield vs stability. MET and WFC are evenly matched (2–2 across six dimensions) — the right pick comes down to which dimension you weight most.
On yield alone, MET generates 2.92% vs 2.23% — a 0.69% difference that translates to $690 more per year on a $100,000 investment. On dividend safety, WFC scores 9.0/10 (Strong) vs 8.3/10 (Strong) for MET — investors prioritizing income reliability should weight that gap alongside the yield difference.
Scorecard at a glance
| Dimension | MET | WFC | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yield | 2.92% | 2.23% | MET wins |
| Dividend safety | 8.3/10 | 9.0/10 | WFC wins |
| Growth trend | -0.03% vs 5y | +0.09% vs 5y | Tie |
| Volatility (beta) | 0.73 | 0.92 | MET wins |
| Scale | $50.6B | $270.5B | WFC wins |
| Tax efficiency | Qualified-eligible | Qualified-eligible | Tie |
| Overall | 2 wins | 2 wins | Tie |
Dimension by dimension
MET wins on yield (2.92% vs 2.23%)
On a $10,000 investment that's about $69 more in annual dividend income before taxes — though higher yield often comes with higher risk.
MET's higher yield (2.92%) looks attractive but investors should weigh whether the extra income compensates for any additional risk versus WFC's 2.23% — especially if the higher yield is driven by covered calls or a falling share price.
WFC wins on safety (9.0/10 vs 8.3/10)
Our score combines yield zone, payout ratio, trend vs 5-year average, instrument type, and size. WFC scores better on the weighted average of those factors.
WFC (9.0/10) scores 0.7 points higher than MET (8.3/10). A higher safety score means lower historical indicators of dividend cut risk — payout ratio, yield zone, and trend all factor in.
Yield trends are similar
Both tickers' current yields sit close to their 5-year averages, suggesting comparable dividend-vs-price trajectories.
MET is less volatile (beta 0.73 vs 0.92)
Lower beta means smaller swings vs the S&P 500 — generally a steadier hold for income investors.
WFC is 5.3× larger by market cap
Larger companies tend to have tighter spreads, deeper liquidity, and lower closure risk.
Both pay qualified-dividend-eligible distributions
Neither is structurally flagged for ordinary-income tax treatment. Most distributions should qualify for the lower long-term capital gains rate if holding-period requirements are met.
How we compare these
Every comparison on this page is computed from current public data, not written by hand. Yield comes from the most recent dividend distribution annualized over current price. Safety scores combine yield zone, payout ratio, trend vs 5-year average, instrument type, and size — see our methodology for the exact formula. Tax-efficiency flags identify covered-call ETFs, REITs, and mREITs which distribute primarily as ordinary income.
This is educational, not investment advice.Scores reflect a snapshot of public data on the "as of" dates shown on each ticker's safety page. Verify on the issuer's investor relations page or your brokerage before making decisions.
Frequently asked
Which is better for income, MET or WFC?
MET and WFC are evenly matched (2–2 across six dimensions) — the right pick comes down to which dimension you weight most.
MET vs WFC: which has a higher dividend yield?
MET yields 2.92% and WFC yields 2.23%. On a $10,000 investment that's about $69 more in annual dividend income before taxes — though higher yield often comes with higher risk.
Is MET or WFC a safer dividend in 2026?
MET scores 8.3/10 (Strong) on the Infnits dividend safety scale. WFC scores 9.0/10 (Strong). WFC is the safer pick on our scoring model.
Which has better dividend growth, MET or WFC?
Both tickers' current yields sit close to their 5-year averages, suggesting comparable dividend-vs-price trajectories.
MET vs WFC: which is more tax-efficient?
Neither is structurally flagged for ordinary-income tax treatment. Most distributions should qualify for the lower long-term capital gains rate if holding-period requirements are met.
Get emailed when MET vs WFC data updates.
Already own MET or WFC? See if the other adds anything.
Connect your brokerage and Infnits checks whether adding either to your existing portfolio actually diversifies — or just duplicates exposure (ETF look-through included).
Check overlap with my portfolio →