TechnipFMC vs NOV
FTI and NOV side by side, both in construction, mining, and materials handling. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How FTI and NOV compare
TechnipFMC is the larger company, worth 3.8 times as much as NOV ($26.3B against $6.9B).
On earnings, TechnipFMC is cheaper: it trades at 21.1× trailing earnings, against 74.2× for NOV.
TechnipFMC grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (9.1% versus −1.7% for NOV).
TechnipFMC keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 12.0% compared with 1.1% at NOV.
Both pay dividends: TechnipFMC yields 0.30% and NOV 2.3%.
TechnipFMC scores higher on the StockData Score (18 against 9 for NOV), 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 | FTI | NOV |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $26.3B | $6.9B |
| Share price | $66.95 | $19.29 |
| Change, 1 year | 62.7% | 26.0% |
| Change, 5 years | 804% | 31.6% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.87 | 0.80 |
| Employees | 37K | 35K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 18 (better) | 9 |
| Valuation score | 4 (better) | 2 |
| Growth score | 1 (better) | 0 |
| Performance score | 4 (better) | 0 |
| Health score | 6 (better) | 5 |
| Dividend score | 3 (better) | 2 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 21.1× (better) | 74.2× |
| P/S | 2.5× | 0.8× (better) |
| P/B | 7.9× | 1.1× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 11.6× | 9.3× (better) |
| P/FCF | 16.5× | 12.2× (better) |
| FCF yield | 6.1% | 8.2% (better) |
| Fair value | $79.49 | $20.51 |
| Margin of safety | 15.8% (better) | 5.9% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 9.1% (better) | −1.7% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 8.7% (better) | 7.5% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 35.8% (better) | −79.8% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 42.0% (better) | −78.7% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | – | 20.5% |
| Operating margin | 16.8% (better) | 5.1% |
| Net margin | 12.0% (better) | 1.1% |
| FCF margin | 14.9% (better) | 6.5% |
| Return on equity | 38.6% (better) | 1.5% |
| Return on invested capital | 50.6% (better) | 3.2% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.12 (better) | 0.27 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | −0.29 | 0.67 (better) |
| Interest coverage | 30.9× (better) | 5.0× |
| Current ratio | 1.09 | 2.42 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 3.39 (better) | 2.02 |
| Piotroski F-score | 8 (better) | 5 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 0.30% | 2.3% (better) |
| Payout ratio | 6.2% | 160% |
| Years of dividend growth | 0 | 2 (better) |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 9.0% | 59.1% (better) |
| Buyback yield | 4.5% (better) | 4.3% |
| Shareholder yield | 4.8% | 6.5% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 98.5% | 109% |
| Held by insiders | 1.2% | 1.2% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$77.1M | −$3.6M (better) |
| Superinvestors holding | 1 | 1 |
| Short interest, % of float | 3.5% | 7.6% |
Go deeper
- FTI stock overview
- FTI income statement
- FTI valuation and score
- NOV stock overview
- NOV income statement
- NOV valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.