LandBridge vs Texas Pacific Land
LB and TPL side by side, both in miscellaneous investing. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How LB and TPL compare
Texas Pacific Land is the larger company, worth 3.6 times as much as LandBridge ($22.9B against $6.4B).
On earnings, Texas Pacific Land is cheaper: it trades at 42.3× trailing earnings, against 84.4× for LandBridge.
LandBridge grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (44.1% versus 20.8% for Texas Pacific Land).
Texas Pacific Land keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 60.3% compared with 16.5% at LandBridge.
Both pay dividends: LandBridge yields 0.55% and Texas Pacific Land 0.70%.
Texas Pacific Land scores higher on the StockData Score (16 against 10 for LandBridge), 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 | LB | TPL |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $6.4B | $22.9B |
| Share price | $83.59 | $331.68 |
| Change, 1 year | 39.0% | 7.6% |
| Change, 5 years | – | 118% |
| Beta (5Y) | −0.67 | 0.63 |
| Employees | 5 | 114 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 10 | 16 (better) |
| Valuation score | 0 | 1 (better) |
| Growth score | 2 (better) | 1 |
| Performance score | 3 | 5 (better) |
| Health score | 3 | 6 (better) |
| Dividend score | 2 | 3 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 84.4× | 42.3× (better) |
| P/S | 28.6× | 25.5× (better) |
| P/B | 18.1× | 13.7× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 48.3× | 30.6× (better) |
| P/FCF | 42.6× | – |
| PEG | – | 15.22 |
| FCF yield | 2.3% | – |
| Fair value | $17.61 | $219.17 |
| Margin of safety | −375% | −51.3% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 44.1% (better) | 20.8% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | – | 21.4% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 94.8% (better) | 17.3% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | – | 17.4% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | – | 22.5% |
| Profitability | ||
| Operating margin | 61.3% | 74.9% (better) |
| Net margin | 16.5% | 60.3% (better) |
| FCF margin | 67.1% | – |
| Return on equity | 12.0% | 36.6% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | 16.7% | 49.1% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 1.51 (better) | 0.00 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 3.23 | – |
| Current ratio | 7.27 (better) | 4.55 |
| Altman Z-score | 7.67 | 76.62 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 5 | 6 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 0.55% | 0.70% (better) |
| Payout ratio | 159% | 29.0% |
| Years of dividend growth | – | 0 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | – | 13.9% |
| Buyback yield | – | 0.04% |
| Shareholder yield | 0.55% | 0.74% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 36.9% | 72.8% |
| Held by insiders | – | 30.1% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$716M | −$2.3M (better) |
| Short interest, % of float | – | 8.8% |
Go deeper
- LB stock overview
- LB income statement
- LB valuation and score
- TPL stock overview
- TPL income statement
- TPL valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.