Halliburton vs Patterson UTI Energy
HAL and PTEN side by side, both in oil and gas field services. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How HAL and PTEN compare
Halliburton is the larger company, worth 5.9 times as much as Patterson UTI Energy ($30.1B against $5.1B).
Halliburton grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (0.63% versus −6.9% for Patterson UTI Energy).
Halliburton keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 7.2% compared with −1.9% at Patterson UTI Energy.
Both pay dividends: Halliburton yields 1.9% and Patterson UTI Energy 2.9%.
Halliburton scores higher on the StockData Score (13 against 8 for Patterson UTI 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 | HAL | PTEN |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $30.1B | $5.1B |
| Share price | $36.17 | $13.32 |
| Change, 1 year | 31.6% | 105% |
| Change, 5 years | 46.5% | 42.3% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.76 | 1.04 |
| Employees | 46K | 7,900 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 13 (better) | 8 |
| Valuation score | 2 (better) | 0 |
| Growth score | 0 | 1 (better) |
| Performance score | 3 (better) | 1 |
| Health score | 5 (better) | 4 |
| Dividend score | 3 (better) | 2 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 18.9× | – |
| P/S | 1.3× | 1.1× (better) |
| P/B | 2.7× | 1.6× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 7.6× | – |
| P/FCF | 17.5× (better) | 28.6× |
| FCF yield | 5.7% (better) | 3.5% |
| Fair value | $32.03 | $11.27 |
| Margin of safety | −12.9% (better) | −18.1% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 0.63% (better) | −6.9% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 9.0% | 33.8% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −14.0% | – |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −10.7% | – |
| Profitability | ||
| Operating margin | 11.4% (better) | −1.1% |
| Net margin | 7.2% (better) | −1.9% |
| FCF margin | 7.7% (better) | 3.8% |
| Return on equity | 14.9% (better) | −2.8% |
| Return on invested capital | 22.1% (better) | −0.92% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.01 (better) | 0.40 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | −0.53 | – |
| Interest coverage | – | −0.7× |
| Current ratio | 2.02 (better) | 1.75 |
| Altman Z-score | 3.55 (better) | 1.96 |
| Piotroski F-score | 4 | 6 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 1.9% | 2.9% (better) |
| Payout ratio | 35.7% | – |
| Years of dividend growth | – | 0 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | – | 26.2% |
| Buyback yield | 2.7% (better) | 0.85% |
| Shareholder yield | 4.6% (better) | 3.7% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 88.2% | 112% |
| Held by insiders | 0.43% | 1.9% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$42.8M | −$33.9M (better) |
| Short interest, % of float | 4.1% | 8.2% |
Go deeper
- HAL stock overview
- HAL income statement
- HAL valuation and score
- PTEN stock overview
- PTEN income statement
- PTEN valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.