Helmerich & Payne vs Nabors Industries
HP and NBR 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 HP and NBR compare
Helmerich & Payne is the larger company, worth 3.0 times as much as Nabors Industries ($4.3B against $1.4B).
Helmerich & Payne grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (16.6% versus 6.1% for Nabors Industries).
Nabors Industries keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 7.7% compared with −3.4% at Helmerich & Payne.
Helmerich & Payne pays a dividend yielding 2.3%; Nabors Industries does not pay one.
Nabors Industries scores higher on the StockData Score (12 against 7 for Helmerich & Payne), 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 | HP | NBR |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $4.3B | $1.4B |
| Share price | $42.99 | $90.78 |
| Change, 1 year | 61.7% | 74.6% |
| Change, 5 years | 25.3% | −11.5% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.08 | 1.35 |
| Employees | 6,200 | 14K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 7 | 12 (better) |
| Valuation score | 1 | 4 (better) |
| Growth score | 2 | 2 |
| Performance score | 0 | 4 (better) |
| Health score | 2 | 2 |
| Dividend score | 2 (better) | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | – | 6.7× |
| P/S | 1.1× | 0.5× (better) |
| P/B | – | 2.7× |
| EV/EBITDA | 7.3× (better) | 7.7× |
| P/FCF | 13.6× (better) | 23.5× |
| FCF yield | 7.3% (better) | 4.3% |
| Fair value | $36.72 | $201.78 |
| Margin of safety | −17.1% | 55.0% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 16.6% (better) | 6.1% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 16.1% (better) | 8.3% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −642% | – |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 31.8% | – |
| Operating margin | 2.3% | 13.9% (better) |
| Net margin | −3.4% | 7.7% (better) |
| FCF margin | 7.9% (better) | 1.9% |
| Return on equity | – | 58.0% |
| Return on invested capital | – | 12.6% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | – | 3.90 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 1.98 (better) | 3.60 |
| Interest coverage | 0.9× | 2.3× (better) |
| Current ratio | 1.96 (better) | 1.89 |
| Altman Z-score | 2.09 (better) | 0.91 |
| Piotroski F-score | 4 | 6 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 2.3% | – |
| Years of dividend growth | 0 | – |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | −33.5% | – |
| Shareholder yield | 2.3% (better) | 0.00% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 102% | 76.2% |
| Held by insiders | 3.8% | 35.9% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$11.5M | $205K (better) |
| Superinvestors holding | 2 (better) | 1 |
| Short interest, % of float | 7.1% | 9.4% |
Go deeper
- HP stock overview
- HP income statement
- HP valuation and score
- NBR stock overview
- NBR income statement
- NBR valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.