Devon Energy vs Diamondback Energy
DVN and FANG side by side, both in crude petroleum and natural gas. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How DVN and FANG compare
Devon Energy and Diamondback Energy are about the same size, with market caps of $57.4B and $59.4B.
On earnings, Devon Energy is cheaper: it trades at 12.4× trailing earnings, against 41.1× for Diamondback Energy.
Diamondback Energy grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (21.4% versus 14.6% for Devon Energy).
Devon Energy keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 16.7% compared with 8.6% at Diamondback Energy.
Both pay dividends: Devon Energy yields 2.1% and Diamondback Energy 2.0%.
Diamondback Energy scores higher on the StockData Score (9 against 8 for Devon 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 | DVN | FANG |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $57.4B | $59.4B |
| Share price | $52.15 | $212.08 |
| Change, 1 year | 62.7% | 47.7% |
| Change, 5 years | 19.7% | 86.4% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.55 | 0.66 |
| Employees | 2,200 | 1,762 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 8 | 9 (better) |
| Valuation score | 1 (better) | 0 |
| Growth score | 1 | 3 (better) |
| Performance score | 2 (better) | 1 |
| Health score | 3 | 3 |
| Dividend score | 1 | 2 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 12.4× (better) | 41.1× |
| P/S | 2.9× (better) | 3.5× |
| P/B | 1.4× (better) | 1.6× |
| EV/EBITDA | 7.9× (better) | 12.3× |
| P/FCF | 12.2× | – |
| FCF yield | 8.2% | – |
| Fair value | $41.28 | $123.05 |
| Margin of safety | −26.3% (better) | −72.3% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 14.6% | 21.4% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 28.9% | 39.8% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 15.2% (better) | −61.8% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −5.6% (better) | −63.3% |
| Profitability | ||
| Operating margin | – | 6.3% |
| Net margin | 16.7% (better) | 8.6% |
| FCF margin | 23.9% | – |
| Return on equity | 11.5% (better) | 3.8% |
| Return on invested capital | – | 1.7% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.31 (better) | 0.33 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 1.36 (better) | 1.92 |
| Current ratio | 0.72 (better) | 0.47 |
| Altman Z-score | 1.66 | 1.72 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 5 (better) | 3 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 2.1% (better) | 2.0% |
| Payout ratio | – | 80.4% |
| Years of dividend growth | – | 0 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | – | 21.3% |
| Buyback yield | 1.3% (better) | 0.00% |
| Shareholder yield | 3.5% (better) | 2.0% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 92.4% | 72.0% |
| Held by insiders | 0.78% | 23.8% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$5.4M (better) | −$8.9B |
| Superinvestors holding | 4 (better) | 1 |
| Short interest, % of float | 2.6% | 3.4% |
Go deeper
- DVN stock overview
- DVN income statement
- DVN valuation and score
- FANG stock overview
- FANG income statement
- FANG valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.