Black Hills vs Pampa Energy
BKH and PAM side by side, both in electric services. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How BKH and PAM compare
Pampa Energy grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (6.5% versus 2.8% for Black Hills).
Pampa Energy keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 18.9% compared with 13.5% at Black Hills.
Black Hills pays a dividend yielding 3.2%; Pampa Energy does not pay one.
Black Hills scores higher on the StockData Score (10 against 5 for Pampa Energy), 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 | BKH | PAM |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $6.6B | – |
| Share price | $86.70 | $65.21 |
| Change, 1 year | 20.1% | −26.8% |
| Change, 5 years | 32.9% | 267% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.51 | 0.65 |
| Employees | 257 | 1,847 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 10 (better) | 5 |
| Valuation score | 2 (better) | 0 |
| Growth score | 1 (better) | 0 |
| Performance score | 3 (better) | 2 |
| Health score | 1 | 3 (better) |
| Dividend score | 3 (better) | 0 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 20.8× | – |
| P/S | 2.8× | – |
| P/B | 1.7× | – |
| EV/EBITDA | 12.7× | – |
| PEG | 248.43 | – |
| FCF yield | −4.8% | – |
| Fair value | $80.59 | – |
| Margin of safety | −7.6% | – |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 2.8% | 6.5% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 6.4% | 13.2% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 10.7% (better) | −39.1% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 5.1% (better) | −39.1% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 1.7% | – |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | – | 31.5% |
| Operating margin | 24.3% | 25.2% (better) |
| Net margin | 13.5% | 18.9% (better) |
| FCF margin | −13.5% | −10.8% (better) |
| Return on equity | 8.2% | 11.0% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | 6.0% | 8.5% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 1.13 | 0.53 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 5.13 | 1.27 (better) |
| Interest coverage | 2.8× (better) | 2.6× |
| Current ratio | 0.47 | 3.11 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 1.03 | – |
| Piotroski F-score | 6 (better) | 5 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 3.2% | – |
| Payout ratio | 67.0% | – |
| Years of dividend growth | 16 | – |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 4.5% | – |
| Buyback yield | −1.0% | – |
| Shareholder yield | 2.2% | – |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 103% | 0.38% |
| Held by insiders | 0.57% | 30.9% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$305K | $19.0M (better) |
| Short interest, % of float | 16.9% | – |
Go deeper
- BKH stock overview
- BKH income statement
- BKH valuation and score
- PAM stock overview
- PAM income statement
- PAM valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.