EQT vs SM Energy
EQT and SM 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 EQT and SM compare
EQT is the larger company, worth 4.2 times as much as SM Energy ($32.8B against $7.8B).
On earnings, SM Energy is cheaper: it trades at 7.9× trailing earnings, against 12.4× for EQT.
SM Energy grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (108% versus 18.6% for EQT).
EQT keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 28.4% compared with 13.7% at SM Energy.
Both pay dividends: EQT yields 0.95% and SM Energy 2.6%.
EQT scores higher on the StockData Score (16 against 12 for SM 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 | EQT | SM |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $32.8B | $7.8B |
| Share price | $52.36 | $32.73 |
| Change, 1 year | −13.7% | 78.7% |
| Change, 5 years | 151% | 8.4% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.75 | 0.99 |
| Employees | 1,523 | 1,241 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 16 (better) | 12 |
| Valuation score | 4 (better) | 3 |
| Growth score | 2 | 3 (better) |
| Performance score | 3 | 4 (better) |
| Health score | 4 (better) | 0 |
| Dividend score | 3 (better) | 2 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 12.4× | 7.9× (better) |
| P/S | 3.5× | 1.1× (better) |
| P/B | 1.3× | 1.0× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 6.4× | 4.5× (better) |
| P/FCF | 8.6× | – |
| FCF yield | 11.6% | – |
| Fair value | $56.83 | $39.22 |
| Margin of safety | 7.9% | 16.6% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 18.6% | 108% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 23.1% (better) | 22.9% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 49.1% (better) | 29.0% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 45.0% (better) | −34.7% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 83.5% (better) | 74.2% |
| Operating margin | 41.8% (better) | 23.6% |
| Net margin | 28.4% (better) | 13.7% |
| FCF margin | 40.7% | – |
| Return on equity | 10.9% | 15.0% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | 9.8% | 20.5% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.22 | – |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 0.83 | – |
| Interest coverage | 11.2× (better) | 4.2× |
| Current ratio | 0.71 (better) | 0.57 |
| Altman Z-score | 2.30 (better) | 1.27 |
| Piotroski F-score | 8 (better) | 6 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 0.95% | 2.6% (better) |
| Payout ratio | 15.5% | 22.4% |
| Years of dividend growth | 3 | 4 (better) |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 84.3% | 109% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 0.95% | 2.6% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 94.3% | 96.7% |
| Held by insiders | 0.69% | 0.90% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$20.7M | −$1.6M (better) |
| Superinvestors holding | 1 | – |
| Short interest, % of float | 3.9% | 5.5% |
Go deeper
- EQT stock overview
- EQT income statement
- EQT valuation and score
- SM stock overview
- SM income statement
- SM valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.