Cheniere Energy Partners, L.P. vs Targa Resources
CQP and TRGP 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 TRGP compare
Targa Resources is the larger company, worth 2.1 times as much as Cheniere Energy Partners, L.P. ($67.5B against $32.2B).
Cheniere Energy Partners, L.P. grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (15.4% versus −2.0% for Targa Resources).
Cheniere Energy Partners, L.P. keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 27.3% compared with 13.5% at Targa Resources.
Both pay dividends: Cheniere Energy Partners, L.P. yields 4.9% and Targa Resources 1.4%.
Cheniere Energy Partners, L.P. scores higher on the StockData Score (14 against 9 for Targa 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 | CQP | TRGP |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $32.2B | $67.5B |
| Share price | $66.61 | $314.99 |
| Change, 1 year | 24.3% | 108% |
| Change, 5 years | 55.4% | 456% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.37 | 0.62 |
| Employees | 1,717 | 3,570 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 14 (better) | 9 |
| Valuation score | 3 (better) | 0 |
| Growth score | 2 | 2 |
| Performance score | 3 | 5 (better) |
| Health score | 3 (better) | 1 |
| Dividend score | 3 (better) | 1 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | – | 30.1× |
| P/S | 2.8× (better) | 4.0× |
| P/B | – | 18.5× |
| EV/EBITDA | 10.1× (better) | 15.8× |
| P/FCF | 11.6× (better) | 91.2× |
| PEG | – | 1.01 |
| FCF yield | 8.6% (better) | 1.1% |
| Fair value | $86.10 | $223.96 |
| Margin of safety | 22.6% (better) | −40.6% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 15.4% (better) | −2.0% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 11.8% | 15.6% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 28.1% | 38.4% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | – | 50.1% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 49.8% (better) | 43.2% |
| Operating margin | 33.6% (better) | 22.9% |
| Net margin | 27.3% (better) | 13.5% |
| FCF margin | 24.2% (better) | 4.4% |
| Return on equity | – | 72.6% |
| Return on invested capital | – | 14.7% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | – | 5.20 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 3.07 (better) | 3.44 |
| Interest coverage | 5.2× | – |
| Current ratio | 1.22 (better) | 0.77 |
| Altman Z-score | 2.53 | 2.79 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 6 | 6 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 4.9% (better) | 1.4% |
| Years of dividend growth | – | 4 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | – | 25.4% |
| Buyback yield | – | 0.49% |
| Shareholder yield | 4.9% (better) | 1.9% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 46.8% | 95.1% |
| Held by insiders | 0.01% | 1.3% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | – | −$34.3M |
| Superinvestors holding | – | 1 |
| Short interest, % of float | 0.11% | 2.5% |
Go deeper
- CQP stock overview
- CQP income statement
- CQP valuation and score
- TRGP stock overview
- TRGP income statement
- TRGP valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.