Natural Gas Services vs Mammoth Energy Services
NGS and TUSK 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 TUSK compare
Natural Gas Services is the larger company, worth 2.4 times as much as Mammoth Energy Services ($383M against $157M).
On earnings, Mammoth Energy Services is cheaper: it trades at 11.2× trailing earnings, against 18.8× for Natural Gas Services.
Natural Gas Services grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (24.2% versus −54.8% for Mammoth Energy Services).
Mammoth Energy Services keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 17.1% compared with 9.8% at Natural Gas Services.
Natural Gas Services pays a dividend yielding 1.8%; Mammoth Energy Services does not pay one.
Natural Gas Services scores higher on the StockData Score (16 against 12 for Mammoth Energy Services), 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 | TUSK |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $383M | $157M |
| Share price | $29.70 | $3.26 |
| Change, 1 year | 0.00% | 63.8% |
| Change, 5 years | 173% | 30.9% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.67 | 0.84 |
| Employees | 259 | 115 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 16 (better) | 12 |
| Valuation score | 5 (better) | 4 |
| Growth score | 3 (better) | 0 |
| Performance score | 5 (better) | 3 |
| Health score | 1 | 5 (better) |
| Dividend score | 2 (better) | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 18.8× | 11.2× (better) |
| P/S | 1.8× (better) | 2.0× |
| P/B | 1.3× | 0.6× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 4.3× | – |
| FCF yield | −4.0% (better) | −91.0% |
| Fair value | $34.28 | $5.95 |
| Margin of safety | 13.4% | 45.2% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 24.2% (better) | −54.8% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 20.4% (better) | −32.4% |
| 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) | −10.6% |
| Net margin | 9.8% | 17.1% (better) |
| FCF margin | −7.4% (better) | −181% |
| Return on equity | 7.1% (better) | 5.3% |
| Return on invested capital | 11.2% (better) | −4.0% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | – | 0.00 |
| Interest coverage | 2.4× | – |
| Current ratio | 2.45 (better) | 1.50 |
| Altman Z-score | 1.42 (better) | 0.34 |
| Piotroski F-score | 7 (better) | 5 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 1.8% | – |
| Payout ratio | 32.5% | – |
| Shareholder yield | 1.8% (better) | 0.00% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 87.8% | 54.2% |
| Held by insiders | 18.4% | – |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$5.0M | $10.5M (better) |
| Short interest, % of float | 4.9% | – |
Go deeper
- NGS stock overview
- NGS income statement
- NGS valuation and score
- TUSK stock overview
- TUSK income statement
- TUSK valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.