Atmos Energy vs MDU Resources
ATO and MDU 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 MDU compare
Atmos Energy is the larger company, worth 7.0 times as much as MDU Resources ($29.1B against $4.1B).
On earnings, Atmos Energy is cheaper: it trades at 20.5× trailing earnings, against 20.8× for MDU Resources.
Atmos Energy grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (6.5% versus −1.1% for MDU Resources).
Atmos Energy keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 28.5% compared with 10.7% at MDU Resources.
Both pay dividends: Atmos Energy yields 2.3% and MDU Resources 2.9%.
Atmos Energy scores higher on the StockData Score (13 against 5 for MDU Resources), 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 | MDU |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $29.1B | $4.1B |
| Share price | $172.41 | $19.72 |
| Change, 1 year | 0.44% | 1.4% |
| Change, 5 years | 83.4% | −31.6% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.37 | 0.62 |
| Employees | 5,487 | 2,096 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 13 (better) | 5 |
| Valuation score | 3 (better) | 2 |
| Growth score | 3 (better) | 1 |
| Performance score | 3 (better) | 0 |
| Health score | 1 (better) | 0 |
| Dividend score | 3 (better) | 2 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 20.5× (better) | 20.8× |
| P/S | 5.9× | 2.3× (better) |
| P/B | 1.9× | 1.4× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 15.0× | 12.8× (better) |
| PEG | 2.04 | – |
| FCF yield | −6.9% (better) | −9.3% |
| Fair value | $161.26 | $19.03 |
| Margin of safety | −6.9% | −3.7% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 6.5% (better) | −1.1% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 10.8% (better) | −19.5% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 21.1% (better) | −8.7% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 15.5% (better) | −10.4% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 8.8% (better) | −13.8% |
| Profitability | ||
| Operating margin | 37.0% (better) | 17.0% |
| Net margin | 28.5% (better) | 10.7% |
| FCF margin | −41.1% | −21.1% (better) |
| Return on equity | 9.8% (better) | 7.0% |
| Return on invested capital | 6.2% (better) | 5.5% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.67 (better) | 0.88 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 3.75 (better) | 4.83 |
| Interest coverage | 12.8× (better) | 2.6× |
| Current ratio | 0.81 | 0.99 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 1.65 (better) | 1.10 |
| Piotroski F-score | 5 (better) | 4 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 2.3% | 2.9% (better) |
| Payout ratio | 45.1% | 57.2% |
| Years of dividend growth | 16 (better) | 1 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 8.6% (better) | −8.3% |
| Buyback yield | −3.7% | −2.7% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | −1.4% | 0.20% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 96.5% | 92.3% |
| Held by insiders | 0.40% | 5.7% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$26.7K | $104K (better) |
| Short interest, % of float | 2.7% | 9.5% |
Go deeper
- ATO stock overview
- ATO income statement
- ATO valuation and score
- MDU stock overview
- MDU income statement
- MDU valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.