Natural Gas Services vs Nine Energy Service
NGS and NINE 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 NGS and NINE compare
Natural Gas Services is the larger company, worth 3.7 times as much as Nine Energy Service ($383M against $104M).
Natural Gas Services grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (24.2% versus 1.4% for Nine Energy Service).
Natural Gas Services keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 9.8% compared with −9.1% at Nine Energy Service.
Natural Gas Services pays a dividend yielding 1.8%; Nine Energy Service does not pay one.
Natural Gas Services scores higher on the StockData Score (16 against 5 for Nine Energy Service), 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 | NGS | NINE |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $383M | $104M |
| Share price | $29.70 | $7.42 |
| Change, 1 year | 0.00% | 1383% |
| Change, 5 years | 173% | – |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.67 | – |
| Employees | 259 | 1,072 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 16 (better) | 5 |
| Valuation score | 5 (better) | 3 |
| Growth score | 3 (better) | 0 |
| Performance score | 5 (better) | 0 |
| Health score | 1 | 2 (better) |
| Dividend score | 2 (better) | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 18.8× | – |
| P/S | 1.8× | 0.2× (better) |
| P/B | 1.3× | 0.8× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 4.3× (better) | 79.3× |
| FCF yield | −4.0% (better) | −22.5% |
| Fair value | $34.28 | $20.03 |
| Margin of safety | 13.4% | 63.0% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 24.2% (better) | 1.4% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 20.4% (better) | 12.6% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 8.6% | – |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 6.8% | – |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 62.2% | – |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 59.9% | – |
| Operating margin | 21.2% (better) | 0.42% |
| Net margin | 9.8% (better) | −9.1% |
| FCF margin | −7.4% | −4.1% (better) |
| Return on equity | 7.1% (better) | −342% |
| Return on invested capital | 11.2% (better) | 0.85% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | – | 0.78 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | – | 35.21 |
| Interest coverage | 2.4× (better) | 0.0× |
| Current ratio | 2.45 (better) | 2.33 |
| Altman Z-score | 1.42 | 2.46 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 7 (better) | 2 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 1.8% | – |
| Payout ratio | 32.5% | – |
| Buyback yield | – | 0.00% |
| Shareholder yield | 1.8% (better) | 0.00% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 87.8% | 82.8% |
| Held by insiders | 18.4% | 42.6% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$5.0M | – |
| Short interest, % of float | 4.9% | 2.5% |
Go deeper
- NGS stock overview
- NGS income statement
- NGS valuation and score
- NINE stock overview
- NINE income statement
- NINE valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.