EOG Resources vs Diamondback Energy
EOG 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 EOG and FANG compare
EOG Resources is the larger company, worth 1.5 times as much as Diamondback Energy ($86.8B against $59.4B).
On earnings, EOG Resources is cheaper: it trades at 12.9× trailing earnings, against 41.1× for Diamondback Energy.
Diamondback Energy grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (21.4% versus 19.1% for EOG Resources).
EOG Resources keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 25.4% compared with 8.6% at Diamondback Energy.
Both pay dividends: EOG Resources yields 2.5% and Diamondback Energy 2.0%.
EOG Resources scores higher on the StockData Score (12 against 9 for Diamondback 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 | EOG | FANG |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $86.8B | $59.4B |
| Share price | $165.54 | $212.08 |
| Change, 1 year | 56.2% | 47.7% |
| Change, 5 years | 74.0% | 86.4% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.52 | 0.66 |
| Employees | 3,400 | 1,762 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 12 (better) | 9 |
| Valuation score | 0 | 0 |
| Growth score | 1 | 3 (better) |
| Performance score | 4 (better) | 1 |
| Health score | 6 (better) | 3 |
| Dividend score | 1 | 2 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 12.9× (better) | 41.1× |
| P/S | 3.2× (better) | 3.5× |
| P/B | 2.7× | 1.6× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 6.5× (better) | 12.3× |
| Fair value | $163.57 | $123.05 |
| Margin of safety | −1.2% (better) | −72.3% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 19.1% | 21.4% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 15.5% | 39.8% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 20.0% (better) | −61.8% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 24.6% (better) | −63.3% |
| Profitability | ||
| Operating margin | 32.9% (better) | 6.3% |
| Net margin | 25.4% (better) | 8.6% |
| Return on equity | 22.5% (better) | 3.8% |
| Return on invested capital | 22.1% (better) | 1.7% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.25 (better) | 0.33 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 0.22 (better) | 1.92 |
| Interest coverage | 33.0× | – |
| Current ratio | 1.85 (better) | 0.47 |
| Altman Z-score | 4.26 (better) | 1.72 |
| Piotroski F-score | 4 (better) | 3 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 2.5% (better) | 2.0% |
| Payout ratio | – | 80.4% |
| Years of dividend growth | 1 (better) | 0 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 21.6% (better) | 21.3% |
| Buyback yield | 3.3% (better) | 0.00% |
| Shareholder yield | 5.8% (better) | 2.0% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 96.5% | 72.0% |
| Held by insiders | 0.23% | 23.8% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$10.8M (better) | −$8.9B |
| Superinvestors holding | 2 (better) | 1 |
| Short interest, % of float | 3.1% | 3.4% |
Go deeper
- EOG stock overview
- EOG income statement
- EOG 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.