Atmos Energy vs Cheniere Energy Partners, L.P.
ATO and CQP side by side, both in gas production and distribution. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How ATO and CQP compare
Atmos Energy and Cheniere Energy Partners, L.P. are about the same size, with market caps of $29.1B and $32.2B.
Cheniere Energy Partners, L.P. grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (15.4% versus 6.5% for Atmos Energy).
Atmos Energy keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 28.5% compared with 27.3% at Cheniere Energy Partners, L.P..
Both pay dividends: Atmos Energy yields 2.3% and Cheniere Energy Partners, L.P. 4.9%.
Cheniere Energy Partners, L.P. scores higher on the StockData Score (14 against 13 for Atmos Energy), which adds up 30 checks on valuation, growth, past performance, financial health and dividends.
Key numbers
A dot marks the better figure where higher or lower is clearly better.
| Metric | ATO | CQP |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $29.1B | $32.2B |
| Share price | $172.41 | $66.61 |
| Change, 1 year | 0.44% | 24.3% |
| Change, 5 years | 83.4% | 55.4% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.37 | 0.37 |
| Employees | 5,487 | 1,717 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 13 | 14 (better) |
| Valuation score | 3 | 3 |
| Growth score | 3 (better) | 2 |
| Performance score | 3 | 3 |
| Health score | 1 | 3 (better) |
| Dividend score | 3 | 3 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 20.5× | – |
| P/S | 5.9× | 2.8× (better) |
| P/B | 1.9× | – |
| EV/EBITDA | 15.0× | 10.1× (better) |
| P/FCF | – | 11.6× |
| PEG | 2.04 | – |
| FCF yield | −6.9% | 8.6% (better) |
| Fair value | $161.26 | $86.10 |
| Margin of safety | −6.9% | 22.6% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 6.5% | 15.4% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 10.8% | 11.8% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 21.1% | 28.1% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 15.5% | – |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 8.8% | – |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | – | 49.8% |
| Operating margin | 37.0% (better) | 33.6% |
| Net margin | 28.5% (better) | 27.3% |
| FCF margin | −41.1% | 24.2% (better) |
| Return on equity | 9.8% | – |
| Return on invested capital | 6.2% | – |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.67 | – |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 3.75 | 3.07 (better) |
| Interest coverage | 12.8× (better) | 5.2× |
| Current ratio | 0.81 | 1.22 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 1.65 | 2.53 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 5 | 6 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 2.3% | 4.9% (better) |
| Payout ratio | 45.1% | – |
| Years of dividend growth | 16 | – |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 8.6% | – |
| Buyback yield | −3.7% | – |
| Shareholder yield | −1.4% | 4.9% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 96.5% | 46.8% |
| Held by insiders | 0.40% | 0.01% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$26.7K | – |
| Short interest, % of float | 2.7% | 0.11% |
Go deeper
- ATO stock overview
- ATO income statement
- ATO valuation and score
- CQP stock overview
- CQP income statement
- CQP valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.