Natural Gas Services vs ProPetro
NGS and PUMP 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 PUMP compare
ProPetro is the larger company, worth 2.4 times as much as Natural Gas Services ($881M against $369M).
Natural Gas Services grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (24.2% versus −6.0% for ProPetro).
Natural Gas Services keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 9.8% compared with 0.16% at ProPetro.
Natural Gas Services pays a dividend yielding 1.8%; ProPetro does not pay one.
Natural Gas Services scores higher on the StockData Score (17 against 9 for ProPetro), 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 | PUMP |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $369M | $881M |
| Share price | $28.57 | $7.17 |
| Change, 1 year | −5.9% | −32.5% |
| Change, 5 years | 163% | −7.8% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.66 | 0.91 |
| Employees | 259 | 1,700 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 17 (better) | 9 |
| Valuation score | 5 (better) | 4 |
| Growth score | 4 (better) | 2 |
| Performance score | 5 (better) | 1 |
| Health score | 1 | 2 (better) |
| Dividend score | 2 (better) | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 18.1× | – |
| P/S | 1.8× | 0.7× (better) |
| P/B | 1.2× | 0.9× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 4.1× (better) | 5.6× |
| FCF yield | −4.2% (better) | −10.9% |
| Fair value | $34.00 | $9.96 |
| Margin of safety | 16.0% | 28.0% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 24.2% (better) | −6.0% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 20.4% (better) | 10.0% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 8.6% | – |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 6.8% | – |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 62.2% | – |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 59.9% (better) | 23.9% |
| Operating margin | 21.2% (better) | 0.48% |
| Net margin | 9.8% (better) | 0.16% |
| FCF margin | −7.4% (better) | −7.9% |
| Return on equity | 7.1% (better) | 0.22% |
| Return on invested capital | 11.2% (better) | 0.30% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | – | 0.86 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | – | 0.63 |
| Interest coverage | 2.4× (better) | 0.5× |
| Current ratio | 2.45 | 3.49 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 1.40 (better) | 1.38 |
| Piotroski F-score | 7 (better) | 6 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 1.8% | – |
| Payout ratio | 32.5% | – |
| Shareholder yield | 1.8% (better) | 0.00% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 87.8% | 120% |
| Held by insiders | 18.4% | 1.7% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$5.0M (better) | −$278M |
| Short interest, % of float | 4.9% | 15.0% |
Go deeper
- NGS stock overview
- NGS income statement
- NGS valuation and score
- PUMP stock overview
- PUMP income statement
- PUMP valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.