Helmerich & Payne vs Patterson UTI Energy
HP 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 HP and PTEN compare
Helmerich & Payne and Patterson UTI Energy are about the same size, with market caps of $3.7B and $4.1B.
Helmerich & Payne grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (16.6% versus 0.01% for Patterson UTI Energy).
Patterson UTI Energy keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of −0.52% compared with −3.4% at Helmerich & Payne.
Both pay dividends: Helmerich & Payne yields 2.7% and Patterson UTI Energy 3.6%.
Patterson UTI Energy scores higher on the StockData Score (8 against 6 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 | PTEN |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $3.7B | $4.1B |
| Share price | $37.13 | $10.67 |
| Change, 1 year | 33.5% | 67.0% |
| Change, 5 years | 50.4% | 45.0% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.10 | 1.08 |
| Employees | 6,200 | 7,900 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 6 | 8 (better) |
| Valuation score | 0 | 0 |
| Growth score | 2 | 2 |
| Performance score | 0 | 1 (better) |
| Health score | 2 | 3 (better) |
| Dividend score | 2 | 2 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/S | 0.9× | 0.8× (better) |
| P/B | – | 1.3× |
| EV/EBITDA | 6.6× (better) | 119× |
| P/FCF | 11.8× (better) | 15.3× |
| FCF yield | 8.5% (better) | 6.5% |
| Fair value | $36.25 | $10.64 |
| Margin of safety | −2.4% | −0.31% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 16.6% (better) | 0.01% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 16.1% | 33.8% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −642% | – |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 31.8% | – |
| Operating margin | 2.3% (better) | 0.86% |
| Net margin | −3.4% | −0.52% (better) |
| FCF margin | 7.9% (better) | 5.5% |
| Return on equity | – | −0.79% |
| Return on invested capital | – | 0.80% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | – | 0.40 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 1.98 (better) | 21.49 |
| Interest coverage | 0.9× (better) | 0.6× |
| Current ratio | 1.96 (better) | 1.73 |
| Altman Z-score | 1.99 (better) | 1.73 |
| Piotroski F-score | 4 | 6 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 2.7% | 3.6% (better) |
| Years of dividend growth | 0 | 0 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | −33.5% | 26.2% (better) |
| Buyback yield | – | 0.83% |
| Shareholder yield | 2.7% | 4.4% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 102% | 112% |
| Held by insiders | 3.8% | 1.9% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$11.5M (better) | −$33.9M |
| Superinvestors holding | 2 | – |
| Short interest, % of float | 6.8% | 7.3% |
Go deeper
- HP stock overview
- HP income statement
- HP valuation and score
- PTEN stock overview
- PTEN income statement
- PTEN valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.