Targa Resources vs Williams Companies
TRGP and WMB side by side, both in gas production and distribution. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How TRGP and WMB compare
Williams Companies is the larger company, worth 1.3 times as much as Targa Resources ($90.9B against $67.5B).
On earnings, Williams Companies is cheaper: it trades at 29.6× trailing earnings, against 30.1× for Targa Resources.
Williams Companies grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (8.7% versus −2.0% for Targa Resources).
Williams Companies keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 25.2% compared with 13.5% at Targa Resources.
Both pay dividends: Targa Resources yields 1.4% and Williams Companies 2.8%.
Targa Resources scores higher on the StockData Score (9 against 8 for Williams Companies), 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 | TRGP | WMB |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $67.5B | $90.9B |
| Share price | $314.99 | $74.35 |
| Change, 1 year | 108% | 30.5% |
| Change, 5 years | 456% | 160% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.62 | 0.53 |
| Employees | 3,570 | 5,987 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 9 (better) | 8 |
| Valuation score | 0 | 0 |
| Growth score | 2 (better) | 1 |
| Performance score | 5 | 5 |
| Health score | 1 (better) | 0 |
| Dividend score | 1 | 2 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 30.1× | 29.6× (better) |
| P/S | 4.0× (better) | 7.5× |
| P/B | 18.5× | 6.9× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 15.8× (better) | 17.7× |
| P/FCF | 91.2× | – |
| PEG | 1.01 (better) | 3.44 |
| FCF yield | 1.1% (better) | −0.12% |
| Fair value | $223.96 | $50.67 |
| Margin of safety | −40.6% (better) | −46.7% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | −2.0% | 8.7% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 15.6% (better) | 9.1% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 38.4% (better) | 26.5% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 50.1% (better) | 26.1% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | – | 66.0% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 43.2% | – |
| Operating margin | 22.9% | 38.2% (better) |
| Net margin | 13.5% | 25.2% (better) |
| FCF margin | 4.4% (better) | −0.88% |
| Return on equity | 72.6% (better) | 24.0% |
| Return on invested capital | 14.7% (better) | 8.5% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 5.20 | 2.33 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 3.44 (better) | 4.37 |
| Interest coverage | – | 3.1× |
| Current ratio | 0.77 (better) | 0.48 |
| Altman Z-score | 2.79 (better) | 1.32 |
| Piotroski F-score | 6 | 6 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 1.4% | 2.8% (better) |
| Payout ratio | – | 81.5% |
| Years of dividend growth | 4 | 8 (better) |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 25.4% (better) | 4.6% |
| Buyback yield | 0.49% (better) | −0.01% |
| Shareholder yield | 1.9% | 2.8% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 95.1% | 89.8% |
| Held by insiders | 1.3% | 0.49% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$34.3M | −$11.0M (better) |
| Superinvestors holding | 1 | – |
| Short interest, % of float | 2.5% | 2.2% |
Go deeper
- TRGP stock overview
- TRGP income statement
- TRGP valuation and score
- WMB stock overview
- WMB income statement
- WMB valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.