Diamondback Energy vs Permian Resources
FANG and PR 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 FANG and PR compare
Diamondback Energy is the larger company, worth 2.7 times as much as Permian Resources ($59.4B against $21.8B).
On earnings, Permian Resources is cheaper: it trades at 17.2× trailing earnings, against 41.1× for Diamondback Energy.
Diamondback Energy grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (21.4% versus 12.8% for Permian Resources).
Permian Resources keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 21.5% compared with 8.6% at Diamondback Energy.
Both pay dividends: Diamondback Energy yields 2.0% and Permian Resources 2.4%.
Permian Resources scores higher on the StockData Score (11 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 | FANG | PR |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $59.4B | $21.8B |
| Share price | $212.08 | $26.02 |
| Change, 1 year | 47.7% | 108% |
| Change, 5 years | 86.4% | 240% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.66 | 0.75 |
| Employees | 1,762 | 515 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 9 | 11 (better) |
| Valuation score | 0 | 0 |
| Growth score | 3 (better) | 2 |
| Performance score | 1 | 4 (better) |
| Health score | 3 | 3 |
| Dividend score | 2 | 2 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 41.1× | 17.2× (better) |
| P/S | 3.5× (better) | 3.8× |
| P/B | 1.6× (better) | 1.8× |
| EV/EBITDA | 12.3× | 12.0× (better) |
| Fair value | $123.05 | $19.60 |
| Margin of safety | −72.3% | −32.7% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 21.4% (better) | 12.8% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 39.8% | 54.2% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −61.8% | 8.4% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −63.3% | −1.9% (better) |
| Profitability | ||
| Operating margin | 6.3% | 35.8% (better) |
| Net margin | 8.6% | 21.5% (better) |
| Return on equity | 3.8% | 11.5% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | 1.7% | 11.6% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.33 | 0.25 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 1.92 | 1.39 (better) |
| Interest coverage | – | 7.8× |
| Current ratio | 0.47 | 0.62 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 1.72 | 2.80 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 3 | 4 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 2.0% | 2.4% (better) |
| Payout ratio | 80.4% | 40.9% |
| Years of dividend growth | 0 | 0 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 21.3% | – |
| Buyback yield | 0.00% | – |
| Shareholder yield | 2.0% | 2.4% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 72.0% | 91.3% |
| Held by insiders | 23.8% | 7.5% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$8.9B | −$90.7M (better) |
| Superinvestors holding | 1 | – |
| Short interest, % of float | 3.4% | 3.7% |
Go deeper
- FANG stock overview
- FANG income statement
- FANG valuation and score
- PR stock overview
- PR income statement
- PR valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.