Duke Energy vs Xcel Energy
DUK and XEL side by side, both in combination electric and gas, and other utility. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How DUK and XEL compare
Duke Energy is the larger company, worth 2.0 times as much as Xcel Energy ($99.3B against $49.9B).
On earnings, Xcel Energy is cheaper: it trades at 18.6× trailing earnings, against 19.1× for Duke Energy.
Duke Energy grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (5.2% versus 4.5% for Xcel Energy).
Xcel Energy keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 17.9% compared with 16.1% at Duke Energy.
Both pay dividends: Duke Energy yields 3.4% and Xcel Energy 2.9%.
Duke Energy scores higher on the StockData Score (11 against 10 for Xcel 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 | DUK | XEL |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $99.3B | $49.9B |
| Share price | $127.39 | $79.82 |
| Change, 1 year | 2.5% | 0.16% |
| Change, 5 years | 25.3% | 25.1% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.21 | 0.32 |
| Employees | 26K | 12K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 11 (better) | 10 |
| Valuation score | 4 (better) | 2 |
| Growth score | 1 | 1 |
| Performance score | 4 | 4 |
| Health score | 0 | 0 |
| Dividend score | 2 | 3 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 19.1× | 18.6× (better) |
| P/S | 3.0× (better) | 3.4× |
| P/B | 1.8× (better) | 2.0× |
| EV/EBITDA | 11.3× (better) | 14.1× |
| PEG | 0.74 (better) | 7.26 |
| FCF yield | −4.3% (better) | −15.3% |
| Fair value | $136.04 | $74.14 |
| Margin of safety | 6.4% (better) | −7.7% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 5.2% (better) | 4.5% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 6.4% (better) | 4.9% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 8.2% | 39.4% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 8.3% | 30.8% (better) |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 29.7% (better) | 4.2% |
| Profitability | ||
| Operating margin | 28.3% (better) | 21.7% |
| Net margin | 16.1% | 17.9% (better) |
| FCF margin | −13.1% (better) | −51.2% |
| Return on equity | 9.9% | 11.4% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | 5.6% (better) | 5.5% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 1.67 | 1.59 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 5.34 (better) | 6.12 |
| Interest coverage | 2.4× (better) | 1.9× |
| Current ratio | 0.66 | 0.69 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 0.73 | 0.86 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 6 (better) | 4 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 3.4% (better) | 2.9% |
| Payout ratio | – | 52.4% |
| Years of dividend growth | 10 (better) | 3 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 2.0% | – |
| Buyback yield | – | −6.1% |
| Shareholder yield | 3.4% (better) | −3.2% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 69.9% | 95.8% |
| Held by insiders | 0.17% | 0.23% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$9.6M | −$1.4M (better) |
Go deeper
- DUK stock overview
- DUK income statement
- DUK valuation and score
- XEL stock overview
- XEL income statement
- XEL valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.