Black Hills vs TXNM Energy
BKH and TXNM 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 TXNM compare
Black Hills and TXNM Energy are about the same size, with market caps of $6.6B and $6.5B.
On earnings, Black Hills is cheaper: it trades at 20.8× trailing earnings, against 28.3× for TXNM Energy.
TXNM Energy grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (10.0% versus 2.8% for Black Hills).
Both pay dividends: Black Hills yields 3.2% and TXNM Energy 2.2%.
Black Hills scores higher on the StockData Score (10 against 5 for TXNM 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 | TXNM |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $6.6B | $6.5B |
| Share price | $86.70 | $58.87 |
| Change, 1 year | 20.1% | 2.0% |
| Change, 5 years | 32.9% | 19.0% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.51 | 0.17 |
| Employees | 257 | 389 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 10 (better) | 5 |
| Valuation score | 2 | 2 |
| Growth score | 1 | 1 |
| Performance score | 3 (better) | 0 |
| Health score | 1 (better) | 0 |
| Dividend score | 3 (better) | 2 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 20.8× (better) | 28.3× |
| P/S | 2.8× | 2.8× (better) |
| P/B | 1.7× (better) | 1.8× |
| EV/EBITDA | 12.7× | 11.7× (better) |
| PEG | 248.43 | – |
| FCF yield | −4.8% (better) | −9.3% |
| Fair value | $80.59 | $57.17 |
| Margin of safety | −7.6% | −3.0% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 2.8% | 10.0% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 6.4% | 7.3% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 10.7% | – |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 5.1% | 21.6% (better) |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 1.7% (better) | −7.2% |
| Profitability | ||
| Operating margin | 24.3% | 24.4% (better) |
| Net margin | 13.5% | – |
| FCF margin | −13.5% (better) | −26.0% |
| Return on equity | 8.2% | – |
| Return on invested capital | 6.0% (better) | 5.5% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 1.13 (better) | 1.65 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 5.13 (better) | 5.59 |
| Interest coverage | 2.8× (better) | 2.0× |
| Current ratio | 0.47 | 0.81 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 1.03 (better) | 0.84 |
| Piotroski F-score | 6 | – |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 3.2% (better) | 2.2% |
| Payout ratio | 67.0% | – |
| Years of dividend growth | 16 (better) | 14 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 4.5% | 5.7% (better) |
| Buyback yield | −1.0% (better) | −7.8% |
| Shareholder yield | 2.2% (better) | −5.7% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 103% | 101% |
| Held by insiders | 0.57% | 8.2% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$305K | $0 (better) |
| Short interest, % of float | 16.9% | 6.4% |
Go deeper
- BKH stock overview
- BKH income statement
- BKH valuation and score
- TXNM stock overview
- TXNM income statement
- TXNM valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.