DT Midstream vs Kodiak Gas Services
DTM and KGS 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 DTM and KGS compare
DT Midstream is the larger company, worth 2.7 times as much as Kodiak Gas Services ($12.7B against $4.7B).
On earnings, DT Midstream is cheaper: it trades at 27.0× trailing earnings, against 55.8× for Kodiak Gas Services.
DT Midstream grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (13.4% versus 8.2% for Kodiak Gas Services).
DT Midstream keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 35.4% compared with 5.8% at Kodiak Gas Services.
Both pay dividends: DT Midstream yields 2.8% and Kodiak Gas Services 4.2%.
DT Midstream scores higher on the StockData Score (12 against 7 for Kodiak Gas Services), 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 | DTM | KGS |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $12.7B | $4.7B |
| Share price | $124.34 | $46.86 |
| Change, 1 year | 16.8% | 29.6% |
| Change, 5 years | 155% | – |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.53 | 0.74 |
| Employees | 588 | 1,300 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 12 (better) | 7 |
| Valuation score | 0 | 1 (better) |
| Growth score | 4 (better) | 3 |
| Performance score | 2 (better) | 0 |
| Health score | 2 (better) | 1 |
| Dividend score | 4 (better) | 2 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 27.0× (better) | 55.8× |
| P/S | 9.5× | 3.4× (better) |
| P/B | 2.6× | – |
| EV/EBITDA | 17.0× | 10.9× (better) |
| P/FCF | 23.8× (better) | 946× |
| PEG | 6.57 | – |
| FCF yield | 4.2% (better) | 0.11% |
| Fair value | $88.29 | $36.01 |
| Margin of safety | −40.8% | −30.1% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 13.4% (better) | 8.2% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 10.5% | – |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 16.9% (better) | −3.5% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 16.2% (better) | −10.6% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 5.9% | – |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | – | 63.8% |
| Operating margin | 49.4% (better) | 27.4% |
| Net margin | 35.4% (better) | 5.8% |
| FCF margin | 40.0% (better) | 0.36% |
| Return on equity | 9.9% | – |
| Return on invested capital | 6.2% | – |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.68 | – |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 3.26 (better) | 3.86 |
| Interest coverage | 4.0× | – |
| Current ratio | 1.16 | 1.45 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 1.89 (better) | 1.37 |
| Piotroski F-score | 7 (better) | 5 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 2.8% | 4.2% (better) |
| Payout ratio | 73.2% | 218% |
| Years of dividend growth | 4 (better) | 2 |
| Buyback yield | – | 1.8% |
| Shareholder yield | 2.8% | 6.0% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 87.6% | 104% |
| Held by insiders | 0.57% | 73.8% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$6.2K (better) | −$674M |
| Superinvestors holding | – | 1 |
| Short interest, % of float | 6.4% | 31.5% |
Go deeper
- DTM stock overview
- DTM income statement
- DTM valuation and score
- KGS stock overview
- KGS income statement
- KGS valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.