Atmos Energy vs Cheniere Energy
ATO and LNG 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 LNG compare
Cheniere Energy is the larger company, worth 2.3 times as much as Atmos Energy ($68.2B against $29.1B).
On earnings, Atmos Energy is cheaper: it trades at 20.5× trailing earnings, against 24.6× for Cheniere Energy.
Cheniere Energy grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (17.5% 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 13.6% at Cheniere Energy.
Both pay dividends: Atmos Energy yields 2.3% and Cheniere Energy 0.67%.
Atmos Energy scores higher on the StockData Score (13 against 12 for Cheniere 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 | LNG |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $29.1B | $68.2B |
| Share price | $172.41 | $330.32 |
| Change, 1 year | 0.44% | 56.5% |
| Change, 5 years | 83.4% | 206% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.37 | 0.38 |
| Employees | 5,487 | 1,717 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 13 (better) | 12 |
| Valuation score | 3 (better) | 0 |
| Growth score | 3 | 3 |
| Performance score | 3 | 3 |
| Health score | 1 | 2 (better) |
| Dividend score | 3 | 4 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 20.5× (better) | 24.6× |
| P/S | 5.9× | 3.2× (better) |
| P/B | 1.9× (better) | 11.0× |
| EV/EBITDA | 15.0× | 12.3× (better) |
| P/FCF | – | 24.4× |
| PEG | 2.04 | 0.39 (better) |
| FCF yield | −6.9% | 4.1% (better) |
| Fair value | $161.26 | $268.68 |
| Margin of safety | −6.9% (better) | −22.9% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 6.5% | 17.5% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 10.8% | 16.4% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 21.1% (better) | −24.2% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 15.5% (better) | −21.5% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 8.8% | – |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | – | 47.8% |
| Operating margin | 37.0% (better) | 29.9% |
| Net margin | 28.5% (better) | 13.6% |
| FCF margin | −41.1% | 13.0% (better) |
| Return on equity | 9.8% | 45.2% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | 6.2% | 18.7% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.67 (better) | 3.88 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 3.75 | 2.92 (better) |
| Interest coverage | 12.8× (better) | 6.3× |
| Current ratio | 0.81 | 0.87 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 1.65 | 2.33 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 5 | 7 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 2.3% (better) | 0.67% |
| Payout ratio | 45.1% | 15.8% |
| Years of dividend growth | 16 | – |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 8.6% | – |
| Buyback yield | −3.7% | 4.6% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | −1.4% | 5.3% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 96.5% | 89.9% |
| Held by insiders | 0.40% | 0.59% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$26.7K (better) | −$28.4M |
| Short interest, % of float | 2.7% | 2.3% |
Go deeper
- ATO stock overview
- ATO income statement
- ATO valuation and score
- LNG stock overview
- LNG income statement
- LNG valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.