NiSource vs Sempra
NI and SRE side by side, both in combination electric and gas, and other utility. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How NI and SRE compare
Sempra is the larger company, worth 2.6 times as much as NiSource ($56.3B against $21.4B).
On earnings, NiSource is cheaper: it trades at 23.6× trailing earnings, against 24.9× for Sempra.
NiSource grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (17.0% versus 1.2% for Sempra).
Sempra keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 16.8% compared with 8.0% at NiSource.
Both pay dividends: NiSource yields 2.6% and Sempra 3.0%.
Sempra scores higher on the StockData Score (7 against 6 for NiSource), 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 | NI | SRE |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $21.4B | $56.3B |
| Share price | $44.57 | $86.06 |
| Change, 1 year | 5.0% | −6.7% |
| Change, 5 years | 76.1% | 35.2% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.45 | 0.51 |
| Employees | 7,738 | 5,600 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 6 | 7 (better) |
| Valuation score | 0 | 0 |
| Growth score | 2 (better) | 1 |
| Performance score | 1 | 2 (better) |
| Health score | 0 | 1 (better) |
| Dividend score | 3 | 3 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 23.6× (better) | 24.9× |
| P/S | 1.9× (better) | 4.2× |
| P/B | 2.2× | 1.7× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 13.1× (better) | 14.9× |
| PEG | 5.04 | – |
| FCF yield | −5.1% (better) | −9.3% |
| Fair value | $40.04 | $72.77 |
| Margin of safety | −11.3% (better) | −18.3% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 17.0% (better) | 1.2% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 7.8% (better) | 3.8% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 2.1% (better) | −16.0% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 0.00% (better) | −16.7% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | – | −15.6% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 86.5% | – |
| Operating margin | 16.4% | – |
| Net margin | 8.0% | 16.8% (better) |
| FCF margin | −9.5% (better) | −38.7% |
| Return on equity | 9.8% (better) | 7.1% |
| Return on invested capital | 5.7% | – |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 1.82 | 1.12 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 5.53 (better) | 5.85 |
| Interest coverage | 2.5× | – |
| Current ratio | 0.50 | 1.64 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 0.89 | 0.93 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 6 (better) | 5 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 2.6% | 3.0% (better) |
| Payout ratio | 61.8% | 72.0% |
| Years of dividend growth | 9 | 15 (better) |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 5.9% (better) | 4.3% |
| Buyback yield | −1.5% | −0.04% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 1.2% | 3.0% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 96.4% | 92.2% |
| Held by insiders | 0.38% | 0.05% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$4.9M (better) | −$7.9M |
| Short interest, % of float | 3.5% | – |
Go deeper
- NI stock overview
- NI income statement
- NI valuation and score
- SRE stock overview
- SRE income statement
- SRE valuation and score
Other comparisons
- AEE vs NI
- AES vs NI
- CMS vs NI
- CMS vs SRE
- DUK vs NI
- ED vs NI
- EXC vs NI
- NI vs PCG
- NI vs PEG
- NI vs UGI
- NI vs WEC
- PEG vs SRE
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.