Kinder Morgan vs Cheniere Energy
KMI and LNG side by side, both in gas production and distribution. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How KMI and LNG compare
Kinder Morgan and Cheniere Energy are about the same size, with market caps of $75.4B and $68.2B.
On earnings, Kinder Morgan is cheaper: it trades at 21.7× trailing earnings, against 24.6× for Cheniere Energy.
Cheniere Energy grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (17.5% versus 12.5% for Kinder Morgan).
Kinder Morgan keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 19.3% compared with 13.6% at Cheniere Energy.
Both pay dividends: Kinder Morgan yields 3.5% and Cheniere Energy 0.67%.
Cheniere Energy scores higher on the StockData Score (12 against 10 for Kinder Morgan), 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 | KMI | LNG |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $75.4B | $68.2B |
| Share price | $33.87 | $330.32 |
| Change, 1 year | 30.8% | 56.5% |
| Change, 5 years | 99.8% | 206% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.47 | 0.38 |
| Employees | 11K | 1,717 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 10 | 12 (better) |
| Valuation score | 0 | 0 |
| Growth score | 1 | 3 (better) |
| Performance score | 3 | 3 |
| Health score | 2 | 2 |
| Dividend score | 4 | 4 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 21.7× (better) | 24.6× |
| P/S | 4.2× | 3.2× (better) |
| P/B | 2.4× (better) | 11.0× |
| EV/EBITDA | 14.1× | 12.3× (better) |
| P/FCF | 23.9× (better) | 24.4× |
| PEG | 3.13 | 0.39 (better) |
| FCF yield | 4.2% (better) | 4.1% |
| Fair value | $29.54 | $268.68 |
| Margin of safety | −14.7% (better) | −22.9% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 12.5% | 17.5% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 7.7% | 16.4% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 27.3% (better) | −24.2% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 26.8% (better) | −21.5% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 93.9% | – |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 66.6% (better) | 47.8% |
| Operating margin | 29.0% | 29.9% (better) |
| Net margin | 19.3% (better) | 13.6% |
| FCF margin | 17.6% (better) | 13.0% |
| Return on equity | 11.1% | 45.2% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | 6.4% | 18.7% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 1.02 (better) | 3.88 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 4.18 | 2.92 (better) |
| Interest coverage | – | 6.3× |
| Current ratio | 0.46 | 0.87 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 1.34 | 2.33 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 6 | 7 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 3.5% (better) | 0.67% |
| Payout ratio | 75.8% | 15.8% |
| Years of dividend growth | 8 | – |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 2.3% | – |
| Buyback yield | – | 4.6% |
| Shareholder yield | 3.5% | 5.3% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 69.7% | 89.9% |
| Held by insiders | 12.1% | 0.59% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$2.8M (better) | −$28.4M |
| Short interest, % of float | 2.4% | 2.3% |
Go deeper
- KMI stock overview
- KMI income statement
- KMI valuation and score
- LNG stock overview
- LNG income statement
- LNG valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.