Cheniere Energy Partners, L.P. vs Cheniere Energy
CQP 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 CQP and LNG compare
Cheniere Energy is the larger company, worth 2.1 times as much as Cheniere Energy Partners, L.P. ($68.2B against $32.2B).
Cheniere Energy grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (17.5% versus 15.4% for Cheniere Energy Partners, L.P.).
Cheniere Energy Partners, L.P. keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 27.3% compared with 13.6% at Cheniere Energy.
Both pay dividends: Cheniere Energy Partners, L.P. yields 4.9% and Cheniere Energy 0.67%.
Cheniere Energy Partners, L.P. scores higher on the StockData Score (14 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 | CQP | LNG |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $32.2B | $68.2B |
| Share price | $66.61 | $330.32 |
| Change, 1 year | 24.3% | 56.5% |
| Change, 5 years | 55.4% | 206% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.37 | 0.38 |
| Employees | 1,717 | 1,717 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 14 (better) | 12 |
| Valuation score | 3 (better) | 0 |
| Growth score | 2 | 3 (better) |
| Performance score | 3 | 3 |
| Health score | 3 (better) | 2 |
| Dividend score | 3 | 4 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | – | 24.6× |
| P/S | 2.8× (better) | 3.2× |
| P/B | – | 11.0× |
| EV/EBITDA | 10.1× (better) | 12.3× |
| P/FCF | 11.6× (better) | 24.4× |
| PEG | – | 0.39 |
| FCF yield | 8.6% (better) | 4.1% |
| Fair value | $86.10 | $268.68 |
| Margin of safety | 22.6% (better) | −22.9% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 15.4% | 17.5% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 11.8% | 16.4% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 28.1% (better) | −24.2% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | – | −21.5% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 49.8% (better) | 47.8% |
| Operating margin | 33.6% (better) | 29.9% |
| Net margin | 27.3% (better) | 13.6% |
| FCF margin | 24.2% (better) | 13.0% |
| Return on equity | – | 45.2% |
| Return on invested capital | – | 18.7% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | – | 3.88 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 3.07 | 2.92 (better) |
| Interest coverage | 5.2× | 6.3× (better) |
| Current ratio | 1.22 (better) | 0.87 |
| Altman Z-score | 2.53 (better) | 2.33 |
| Piotroski F-score | 6 | 7 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 4.9% (better) | 0.67% |
| Payout ratio | – | 15.8% |
| Buyback yield | – | 4.6% |
| Shareholder yield | 4.9% | 5.3% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 46.8% | 89.9% |
| Held by insiders | 0.01% | 0.59% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | – | −$28.4M |
| Short interest, % of float | 0.11% | 2.3% |
Go deeper
- CQP stock overview
- CQP income statement
- CQP 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.