Energy Transfer LP vs Williams Companies
ET and WMB 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 ET and WMB compare
Williams Companies is the larger company, worth 1.3 times as much as Energy Transfer LP ($90.9B against $71.9B).
Energy Transfer LP grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (33.3% versus 8.7% for Williams Companies).
Williams Companies keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 25.2% compared with 4.9% at Energy Transfer LP.
Both pay dividends: Energy Transfer LP yields 6.4% and Williams Companies 2.8%.
Energy Transfer LP scores higher on the StockData Score (9 against 8 for Williams Companies), 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 | ET | WMB |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $71.9B | $90.9B |
| Share price | $20.88 | $74.35 |
| Change, 1 year | 22.9% | 30.5% |
| Change, 5 years | 125% | 160% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.56 | 0.53 |
| Employees | 7,965 | 5,987 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 9 (better) | 8 |
| Valuation score | 3 (better) | 0 |
| Growth score | 2 (better) | 1 |
| Performance score | 0 | 5 (better) |
| Health score | 1 (better) | 0 |
| Dividend score | 3 (better) | 2 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | – | 29.6× |
| P/S | 0.7× (better) | 7.5× |
| P/B | – | 6.9× |
| EV/EBITDA | 8.3× (better) | 17.7× |
| P/FCF | 13.8× | – |
| PEG | – | 3.44 |
| FCF yield | 7.3% (better) | −0.12% |
| Fair value | $36.53 | $50.67 |
| Margin of safety | 42.8% (better) | −46.7% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 33.3% (better) | 8.7% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 17.0% (better) | 9.1% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 11.4% | 26.5% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | – | 26.1% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | – | 66.0% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 23.6% | – |
| Operating margin | 10.0% | 38.2% (better) |
| Net margin | 4.9% | 25.2% (better) |
| FCF margin | 4.9% (better) | −0.88% |
| Return on equity | – | 24.0% |
| Return on invested capital | – | 8.5% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | – | 2.33 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 3.99 (better) | 4.37 |
| Interest coverage | 2.9× | 3.1× (better) |
| Current ratio | 1.16 (better) | 0.48 |
| Altman Z-score | – | 1.32 |
| Piotroski F-score | 5 | 6 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 6.4% (better) | 2.8% |
| Payout ratio | – | 81.5% |
| Years of dividend growth | – | 8 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | – | 4.6% |
| Buyback yield | – | −0.01% |
| Shareholder yield | 6.4% (better) | 2.8% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 32.1% | 89.8% |
| Held by insiders | 10.4% | 0.49% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | $55.3M (better) | −$11.0M |
| Superinvestors holding | 4 | – |
| Short interest, % of float | 0.87% | 2.2% |
Go deeper
- ET stock overview
- ET income statement
- ET valuation and score
- WMB stock overview
- WMB income statement
- WMB valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.