Core Laboratories vs Ranger Energy Services
CLB and RNGR side by side, both in oil and gas field services. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How CLB and RNGR compare
Core Laboratories is the larger company, worth 1.4 times as much as Ranger Energy Services ($413M against $293M).
On earnings, Ranger Energy Services is cheaper: it trades at 19.3× trailing earnings, against 26.5× for Core Laboratories.
Ranger Energy Services grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (16.9% versus −0.15% for Core Laboratories).
Core Laboratories keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 3.0% compared with 2.4% at Ranger Energy Services.
Both pay dividends: Core Laboratories yields 0.33% and Ranger Energy Services 1.9%.
Ranger Energy Services scores higher on the StockData Score (17 against 11 for Core Laboratories), 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 | CLB | RNGR |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $413M | $293M |
| Share price | $9.01 | $12.53 |
| Change, 1 year | −44.2% | −10.4% |
| Change, 5 years | −63.0% | 22.4% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.13 | 0.39 |
| Employees | 3,300 | 2,300 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 11 | 17 (better) |
| Valuation score | 1 | 4 (better) |
| Growth score | 2 | 2 |
| Performance score | 2 | 2 |
| Health score | 2 | 6 (better) |
| Dividend score | 4 (better) | 3 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 26.5× | 19.3× (better) |
| P/S | 0.8× | 0.5× (better) |
| P/B | 1.5× | 1.0× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 9.5× | 3.4× (better) |
| P/FCF | 39.8× | 8.3× (better) |
| PEG | 1.83 | – |
| FCF yield | 2.5% | 12.1% (better) |
| Fair value | $8.21 | $18.34 |
| Margin of safety | −9.7% | 31.7% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | −0.15% | 16.9% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | – | 23.8% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −51.6% | 4.7% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −50.0% | 0.00% (better) |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 19.1% (better) | 17.5% |
| Operating margin | 7.5% (better) | 3.9% |
| Net margin | 3.0% (better) | 2.4% |
| FCF margin | 2.0% | 5.5% (better) |
| Return on equity | 5.7% (better) | 5.4% |
| Return on invested capital | 6.0% | 6.4% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.40 (better) | 0.00 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 1.69 (better) | −0.07 |
| Interest coverage | 3.5× | – |
| Current ratio | 2.19 (better) | 2.04 |
| Altman Z-score | 2.56 | 3.25 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 7 (better) | 5 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 0.33% | 1.9% (better) |
| Payout ratio | 11.9% | 37.2% |
| Years of dividend growth | 0 | 0 |
| Buyback yield | 2.5% | 2.7% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 2.9% | 4.6% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 115% | 86.0% |
| Held by insiders | 1.5% | 7.7% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | $53.9K (better) | −$1.9M |
| Short interest, % of float | 11.0% | 2.7% |
Go deeper
- CLB stock overview
- CLB income statement
- CLB valuation and score
- RNGR stock overview
- RNGR income statement
- RNGR valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.