Murphy Oil vs SM Energy
MUR and SM side by side, both in crude petroleum and natural gas. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How MUR and SM compare
SM Energy is the larger company, worth 1.5 times as much as Murphy Oil ($9.6B against $6.3B).
On earnings, SM Energy is cheaper: it trades at 7.9× trailing earnings, against 21.8× for Murphy Oil.
SM Energy grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (75.4% versus 7.6% for Murphy Oil).
SM Energy keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 18.2% compared with 9.8% at Murphy Oil.
Both pay dividends: Murphy Oil yields 3.1% and SM Energy 2.1%.
SM Energy scores higher on the StockData Score (13 against 11 for Murphy Oil), 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 | MUR | SM |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $6.3B | $9.6B |
| Share price | $43.95 | $40.38 |
| Change, 1 year | 57.3% | 95.8% |
| Change, 5 years | 52.7% | 9.0% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.70 | 0.92 |
| Employees | 822 | 1,241 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 11 | 13 (better) |
| Valuation score | 2 | 3 (better) |
| Growth score | 1 | 3 (better) |
| Performance score | 2 | 4 (better) |
| Health score | 4 (better) | 1 |
| Dividend score | 2 | 2 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 21.8× | 7.9× (better) |
| P/S | 2.1× | 1.7× (better) |
| P/B | 1.2× (better) | 1.2× |
| EV/EBITDA | 4.7× (better) | 5.5× |
| Fair value | $50.01 | $45.25 |
| Margin of safety | 12.1% (better) | 10.8% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 7.6% | 75.4% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 6.7% | 22.9% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 3.3% | 23.1% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 4.7% (better) | −27.9% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | – | 74.2% |
| Operating margin | 18.6% | 29.6% (better) |
| Net margin | 9.8% | 18.2% (better) |
| Return on equity | 5.6% | 16.1% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | 6.3% | 21.0% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.29 | – |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 0.67 | – |
| Interest coverage | 5.5× (better) | 5.2× |
| Current ratio | 0.85 (better) | 0.62 |
| Altman Z-score | 2.16 (better) | 1.31 |
| Piotroski F-score | 5 | 6 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 3.1% (better) | 2.1% |
| Payout ratio | 65.7% | 18.1% |
| Years of dividend growth | 4 | 4 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 15.8% | 109% (better) |
| Buyback yield | 0.01% | – |
| Shareholder yield | 3.1% (better) | 2.1% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 88.7% | 96.7% |
| Held by insiders | 4.6% | 0.90% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$1.9M | −$1.6M (better) |
| Short interest, % of float | 7.6% | 5.9% |
Go deeper
- MUR stock overview
- MUR income statement
- MUR valuation and score
- SM stock overview
- SM income statement
- SM valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.