Weatherford International vs Cactus
WFRD and WHD side by side, both in construction, mining, and materials handling. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How WFRD and WHD compare
Weatherford International is the larger company, worth 1.2 times as much as Cactus ($6.5B against $5.3B).
Cactus grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (21.8% versus −7.2% for Weatherford International).
Cactus keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 12.0% compared with 7.7% at Weatherford International.
Both pay dividends: Weatherford International yields 1.2% and Cactus 0.87%.
Cactus scores higher on the StockData Score (16 against 13 for Weatherford International), 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 | WFRD | WHD |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $6.5B | $5.3B |
| Share price | $90.63 | $65.70 |
| Change, 1 year | 23.8% | 55.4% |
| Change, 5 years | 180% | 58.4% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.98 | 1.18 |
| Employees | 17K | 1,500 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 13 | 16 (better) |
| Valuation score | 2 (better) | 0 |
| Growth score | 1 | 3 (better) |
| Performance score | 4 | 4 |
| Health score | 3 | 6 (better) |
| Dividend score | 3 | 3 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 17.9× | – |
| P/S | 1.4× (better) | 3.9× |
| P/B | 3.6× (better) | 4.2× |
| EV/EBITDA | 7.7× (better) | 14.2× |
| P/FCF | 12.4× | – |
| PEG | 0.12 | – |
| FCF yield | 8.1% | – |
| Fair value | $102.40 | $43.39 |
| Margin of safety | 11.5% (better) | −51.4% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | −7.2% | 21.8% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 5.9% | 25.4% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −23.9% | −9.8% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −21.5% | – |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | – | 33.2% |
| Operating margin | 12.7% | 18.6% (better) |
| Net margin | 7.7% | 12.0% (better) |
| FCF margin | 11.0% | – |
| Return on equity | 22.2% (better) | 13.7% |
| Return on invested capital | 24.0% | 24.1% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.83 (better) | 0.00 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 0.43 | – |
| Current ratio | 2.34 | 2.59 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 2.67 | 5.16 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 6 (better) | 5 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 1.2% (better) | 0.87% |
| Payout ratio | 20.8% | 24.0% |
| Years of dividend growth | 1 | 6 (better) |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | – | 8.4% |
| Buyback yield | 0.62% (better) | 0.16% |
| Shareholder yield | 1.8% (better) | 1.0% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 106% | 95.7% |
| Held by insiders | 2.1% | 14.4% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$18.2M (better) | −$64.9M |
| Short interest, % of float | 5.9% | 4.6% |
Go deeper
- WFRD stock overview
- WFRD income statement
- WFRD valuation and score
- WHD stock overview
- WHD income statement
- WHD valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.