Royal Gold vs Texas Pacific Land
RGLD and TPL side by side, both in miscellaneous investing. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How RGLD and TPL compare
Texas Pacific Land is the larger company, worth 1.2 times as much as Royal Gold ($22.9B against $19.4B).
On earnings, Royal Gold is cheaper: it trades at 25.0× trailing earnings, against 42.3× for Texas Pacific Land.
Royal Gold grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (93.5% versus 20.8% for Texas Pacific Land).
Texas Pacific Land keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 60.3% compared with 47.7% at Royal Gold.
Both pay dividends: Royal Gold yields 0.83% and Texas Pacific Land 0.70%.
Royal Gold scores higher on the StockData Score (21 against 16 for Texas Pacific Land), 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 | RGLD | TPL |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $19.4B | $22.9B |
| Share price | $228.77 | $331.68 |
| Change, 1 year | 29.4% | 7.6% |
| Change, 5 years | 118% | 118% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.63 | 0.63 |
| Employees | 39 | 114 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 21 (better) | 16 |
| Valuation score | 3 (better) | 1 |
| Growth score | 5 (better) | 1 |
| Performance score | 5 | 5 |
| Health score | 5 | 6 (better) |
| Dividend score | 3 | 3 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 25.0× (better) | 42.3× |
| P/S | 12.5× (better) | 25.5× |
| P/B | 2.6× (better) | 13.7× |
| EV/EBITDA | 15.7× (better) | 30.6× |
| PEG | 1.88 (better) | 15.22 |
| Fair value | $195.71 | $219.17 |
| Margin of safety | −16.9% (better) | −51.3% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 93.5% (better) | 20.8% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 19.5% | 21.4% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 64.2% (better) | 17.3% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 34.3% (better) | 17.4% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 36.2% (better) | 22.5% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 66.8% | – |
| Operating margin | 61.4% | 74.9% (better) |
| Net margin | 47.7% | 60.3% (better) |
| Return on equity | 13.5% | 36.6% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | 14.3% | 49.1% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.05 (better) | 0.00 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 0.17 | – |
| Current ratio | 2.92 | 4.55 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 7.18 | 76.62 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 5 | 6 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 0.83% (better) | 0.70% |
| Payout ratio | 18.9% | 29.0% |
| Years of dividend growth | 15 (better) | 0 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 11.7% | 13.9% (better) |
| Buyback yield | – | 0.04% |
| Shareholder yield | 0.83% (better) | 0.74% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 84.7% | 72.8% |
| Held by insiders | 0.30% | 30.1% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$5.8M | −$2.3M (better) |
| Short interest, % of float | 2.6% | 8.8% |
Go deeper
- RGLD stock overview
- RGLD income statement
- RGLD valuation and score
- TPL stock overview
- TPL income statement
- TPL valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.