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 wins 3–2 on our six-dimension comparison, but WFC can still be the better fit depending on your priorities — see each dimension below.
MET or WFC — which is better?
MET wins this comparison 3–2 across 6 dimensions. MET yields 2.92% — higher than WFC's 2.42% — and carries a 8.3/10 dividend safety score (Strong) vs 9.0/10 for WFC (Strong). MET wins 3–2 on our six-dimension comparison, but WFC can still be the better fit depending on your priorities — see each dimension below.
On yield alone, MET generates 2.92% vs 2.42% — a 0.50% difference that translates to $500 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% | 2.42% | MET wins |
| Dividend safety | 8.3/10 | 9.0/10 | WFC wins |
| Growth trend | -0.03% vs 5y | +0.29% vs 5y | MET wins |
| Volatility (beta) | 0.73 | 0.95 | MET wins |
| Scale | $50.6B | $248.1B | WFC wins |
| Tax efficiency | Qualified-eligible | Qualified-eligible | Tie |
| Overall | 3 wins | 2 wins | MET wins |
Dimension by dimension
MET wins on yield (2.92% vs 2.42%)
On a $10,000 investment that's about $50 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 2.42% — 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.
MET shows healthier dividend-vs-price trend
MET's yield is 0.03% below its 5y average, versus 0.29% for WFC. Lower (or below-average) yield trend often means price appreciation outpaced distributions — a healthier signal.
MET is less volatile (beta 0.73 vs 0.95)
Lower beta means smaller swings vs the S&P 500 — generally a steadier hold for income investors.
WFC is 4.9× 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.
Full breakdown per ticker: are MET dividends qualified and are WFC dividends qualified — each with the after-tax income at every federal bracket.
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
MET or WFC — which is better?
MET is better on our scoring, winning 3–2 across six dimensions: yield, dividend safety, growth, cost, scale, and tax treatment. MET wins 3–2 on our six-dimension comparison, but WFC can still be the better fit depending on your priorities — see each dimension below.
Which is better for income, MET or WFC?
MET wins 3–2 on our six-dimension comparison, but WFC can still be the better fit depending on your priorities — see each dimension below.
MET vs WFC: which has a higher dividend yield?
MET yields 2.92% and WFC yields 2.42%. On a $10,000 investment that's about $50 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?
MET's yield is 0.03% below its 5y average, versus 0.29% for WFC. Lower (or below-average) yield trend often means price appreciation outpaced distributions — a healthier signal.
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.
Compare both against your actual holdings
Put MET and WFC into the free analyzer with the rest of your portfolio. You'll see what each one contributes to your annual income, your weighted safety score, and whether adding MET diversifies you or just duplicates what you hold. No account, no download.