ProPetro vs RPC
PUMP and RES 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 PUMP and RES compare
RPC is the larger company, worth 1.4 times as much as ProPetro ($1.2B against $881M).
RPC grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (17.8% versus −6.0% for ProPetro).
ProPetro keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 0.16% compared with −1.8% at RPC.
RPC pays a dividend yielding 2.1%; ProPetro does not pay one.
ProPetro scores higher on the StockData Score (9 against 8 for RPC), 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 | PUMP | RES |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $881M | $1.2B |
| Share price | $7.17 | $5.60 |
| Change, 1 year | −32.5% | 2.2% |
| Change, 5 years | −7.8% | 40.0% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.91 | 0.78 |
| Employees | 1,700 | 2,893 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 9 (better) | 8 |
| Valuation score | 4 (better) | 2 |
| Growth score | 2 (better) | 1 |
| Performance score | 1 (better) | 0 |
| Health score | 2 | 4 (better) |
| Dividend score | 0 | 1 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/S | 0.7× | 0.7× (better) |
| P/B | 0.9× (better) | 1.2× |
| EV/EBITDA | 5.6× (better) | 8.5× |
| P/FCF | – | 34.2× |
| FCF yield | −10.9% | 2.9% (better) |
| Fair value | $9.96 | $5.90 |
| Margin of safety | 28.0% (better) | 5.1% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | −6.0% | 17.8% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 10.0% | 22.1% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | – | −167% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | – | −174% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 23.9% (better) | 23.3% |
| Operating margin | 0.48% (better) | −2.2% |
| Net margin | 0.16% (better) | −1.8% |
| FCF margin | −7.9% | 2.0% (better) |
| Return on equity | 0.22% (better) | −3.0% |
| Return on invested capital | 0.30% (better) | −3.4% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.86 | 0.02 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 0.63 (better) | −1.23 |
| Interest coverage | 0.5× (better) | −13.6× |
| Current ratio | 3.49 | 3.52 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 1.38 | 5.01 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 6 (better) | 4 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | – | 2.1% |
| Years of dividend growth | – | 0 |
| Buyback yield | – | 0.28% |
| Shareholder yield | 0.00% | 2.4% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 120% | 42.7% |
| Held by insiders | 1.7% | 82.0% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$278M | – |
| Short interest, % of float | 15.0% | 38.2% |
Go deeper
- PUMP stock overview
- PUMP income statement
- PUMP valuation and score
- RES stock overview
- RES income statement
- RES valuation and score
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.