Southern vs Vistra
SO and VST side by side, both in electric services. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How SO and VST compare
Southern is the larger company, worth 2.3 times as much as Vistra ($108B against $46.4B).
On earnings, Southern is cheaper: it trades at 22.6× trailing earnings, against 23.4× for Vistra.
Southern grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (6.4% versus 3.8% for Vistra).
Southern keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 15.4% compared with 11.6% at Vistra.
Both pay dividends: Southern yields 3.2% and Vistra 0.66%.
Vistra scores higher on the StockData Score (13 against 6 for Southern), 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 | SO | VST |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $108B | $46.4B |
| Share price | $93.71 | $138.37 |
| Change, 1 year | 0.21% | −30.6% |
| Change, 5 years | 48.5% | 575% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.23 | 1.08 |
| Employees | 30K | 6,390 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 6 | 13 (better) |
| Valuation score | 2 | 3 (better) |
| Growth score | 0 | 0 |
| Performance score | 1 | 5 (better) |
| Health score | 0 | 1 (better) |
| Dividend score | 3 | 4 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 22.6× (better) | 23.4× |
| P/S | 3.6× | 2.4× (better) |
| P/B | – | 8.5× |
| EV/EBITDA | 13.2× | 12.1× (better) |
| P/FCF | – | 20.6× |
| PEG | 3.57 | – |
| FCF yield | −3.0% | 4.9% (better) |
| Fair value | $83.91 | $139.28 |
| Margin of safety | −11.7% | 0.65% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 6.4% (better) | 3.8% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 7.7% | 9.2% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 8.7% (better) | −7.1% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 7.0% (better) | −5.4% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 6.0% | 10.9% (better) |
| Profitability | ||
| Operating margin | 24.2% (better) | 18.5% |
| Net margin | 15.4% (better) | 11.6% |
| FCF margin | −10.8% | 11.7% (better) |
| Return on equity | – | 43.1% |
| Return on invested capital | – | 12.4% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | – | 3.57 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 5.32 | 3.54 (better) |
| Interest coverage | – | 3.1× |
| Current ratio | 0.79 | 0.97 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 0.85 | 1.51 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 4 | 5 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 3.2% (better) | 0.66% |
| Payout ratio | 66.6% | 13.9% |
| Years of dividend growth | 16 (better) | 3 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 3.0% | – |
| Buyback yield | −3.9% | 2.5% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | −0.65% | 3.1% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 72.6% | 84.8% |
| Held by insiders | 0.12% | 6.5% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$5.6M (better) | −$51.8M |
| Superinvestors holding | – | 2 |
| Short interest, % of float | – | 3.3% |
Go deeper
- SO stock overview
- SO income statement
- SO valuation and score
- VST stock overview
- VST income statement
- VST valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.