Diamondback Energy vs SM Energy
FANG 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 FANG and SM compare
Diamondback Energy is the larger company, worth 6.2 times as much as SM Energy ($59.4B against $9.6B).
On earnings, SM Energy is cheaper: it trades at 7.9× trailing earnings, against 41.1× for Diamondback Energy.
SM Energy grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (75.4% versus 21.4% for Diamondback Energy).
SM Energy keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 18.2% compared with 8.6% at Diamondback Energy.
Both pay dividends: Diamondback Energy yields 2.0% and SM Energy 2.1%.
SM Energy scores higher on the StockData Score (13 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 | SM |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $59.4B | $9.6B |
| Share price | $212.08 | $40.38 |
| Change, 1 year | 47.7% | 95.8% |
| Change, 5 years | 86.4% | 9.0% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.66 | 0.92 |
| Employees | 1,762 | 1,241 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 9 | 13 (better) |
| Valuation score | 0 | 3 (better) |
| Growth score | 3 | 3 |
| Performance score | 1 | 4 (better) |
| Health score | 3 (better) | 1 |
| Dividend score | 2 | 2 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 41.1× | 7.9× (better) |
| P/S | 3.5× | 1.7× (better) |
| P/B | 1.6× | 1.2× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 12.3× | 5.5× (better) |
| Fair value | $123.05 | $45.25 |
| Margin of safety | −72.3% | 10.8% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 21.4% | 75.4% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 39.8% (better) | 22.9% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −61.8% | 23.1% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −63.3% | −27.9% (better) |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | – | 74.2% |
| Operating margin | 6.3% | 29.6% (better) |
| Net margin | 8.6% | 18.2% (better) |
| Return on equity | 3.8% | 16.1% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | 1.7% | 21.0% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.33 | – |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 1.92 | – |
| Interest coverage | – | 5.2× |
| Current ratio | 0.47 | 0.62 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 1.72 (better) | 1.31 |
| Piotroski F-score | 3 | 6 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 2.0% | 2.1% (better) |
| Payout ratio | 80.4% | 18.1% |
| Years of dividend growth | 0 | 4 (better) |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 21.3% | 109% (better) |
| Buyback yield | 0.00% | – |
| Shareholder yield | 2.0% | 2.1% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 72.0% | 96.7% |
| Held by insiders | 23.8% | 0.90% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$8.9B | −$1.6M (better) |
| Superinvestors holding | 1 | – |
| Short interest, % of float | 3.4% | 5.9% |
Go deeper
- FANG stock overview
- FANG income statement
- FANG 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.