TechnipFMC vs Weatherford International
FTI and WFRD 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 WFRD compare
TechnipFMC is the larger company, worth 4.0 times as much as Weatherford International ($26.3B against $6.5B).
On earnings, Weatherford International is cheaper: it trades at 17.9× trailing earnings, against 21.1× for TechnipFMC.
TechnipFMC grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (9.1% versus −7.2% for Weatherford International).
TechnipFMC keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 12.0% compared with 7.7% at Weatherford International.
Both pay dividends: TechnipFMC yields 0.30% and Weatherford International 1.2%.
TechnipFMC scores higher on the StockData Score (18 against 13 for Weatherford International), 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 | WFRD |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $26.3B | $6.5B |
| Share price | $66.95 | $90.63 |
| Change, 1 year | 62.7% | 23.8% |
| Change, 5 years | 804% | 180% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.87 | 0.98 |
| Employees | 37K | 17K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 18 (better) | 13 |
| Valuation score | 4 (better) | 2 |
| Growth score | 1 | 1 |
| Performance score | 4 | 4 |
| Health score | 6 (better) | 3 |
| Dividend score | 3 | 3 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 21.1× | 17.9× (better) |
| P/S | 2.5× | 1.4× (better) |
| P/B | 7.9× | 3.6× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 11.6× | 7.7× (better) |
| P/FCF | 16.5× | 12.4× (better) |
| PEG | – | 0.12 |
| FCF yield | 6.1% | 8.1% (better) |
| Fair value | $79.49 | $102.40 |
| Margin of safety | 15.8% (better) | 11.5% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 9.1% (better) | −7.2% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 8.7% (better) | 5.9% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 35.8% (better) | −23.9% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 42.0% (better) | −21.5% |
| Profitability | ||
| Operating margin | 16.8% (better) | 12.7% |
| Net margin | 12.0% (better) | 7.7% |
| FCF margin | 14.9% (better) | 11.0% |
| Return on equity | 38.6% (better) | 22.2% |
| Return on invested capital | 50.6% (better) | 24.0% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.12 (better) | 0.83 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | −0.29 | 0.43 (better) |
| Interest coverage | 30.9× | – |
| Current ratio | 1.09 | 2.34 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 3.39 (better) | 2.67 |
| Piotroski F-score | 8 (better) | 6 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 0.30% | 1.2% (better) |
| Payout ratio | 6.2% | 20.8% |
| Years of dividend growth | 0 | 1 (better) |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 9.0% | – |
| Buyback yield | 4.5% (better) | 0.62% |
| Shareholder yield | 4.8% (better) | 1.8% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 98.5% | 106% |
| Held by insiders | 1.2% | 2.1% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$77.1M | −$18.2M (better) |
| Superinvestors holding | 1 | – |
| Short interest, % of float | 3.5% | 5.9% |
Go deeper
- FTI stock overview
- FTI income statement
- FTI valuation and score
- WFRD stock overview
- WFRD income statement
- WFRD valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.