Baker Hughes vs TechnipFMC
BKR and FTI 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 BKR and FTI compare
Baker Hughes is the larger company, worth 1.9 times as much as TechnipFMC ($48.5B against $25.4B).
TechnipFMC grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (9.1% versus 3.7% for Baker Hughes).
TechnipFMC keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 12.0% compared with 10.1% at Baker Hughes.
Both pay dividends: Baker Hughes yields 1.9% and TechnipFMC 0.31%.
TechnipFMC scores higher on the StockData Score (18 against 8 for Baker Hughes), 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 | BKR | FTI |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $48.5B | $25.4B |
| Share price | $48.86 | $65.39 |
| Change, 1 year | −0.18% | 49.5% |
| Change, 5 years | 117% | 950% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.68 | 0.89 |
| Employees | 56K | 37K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 8 | 18 (better) |
| Valuation score | 0 | 4 (better) |
| Growth score | 0 | 1 (better) |
| Performance score | 3 | 4 (better) |
| Health score | 2 | 6 (better) |
| Dividend score | 3 | 3 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | – | 20.6× |
| P/S | 1.7× (better) | 2.4× |
| P/B | 2.4× (better) | 7.6× |
| EV/EBITDA | – | 11.3× |
| P/FCF | 15.0× (better) | 16.0× |
| FCF yield | 6.7% (better) | 6.3% |
| Fair value | $27.42 | $79.51 |
| Margin of safety | −78.2% | 17.8% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 3.7% | 9.1% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 6.0% | 8.7% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 0.24% | 35.8% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | – | 42.0% |
| Profitability | ||
| Operating margin | – | 16.8% |
| Net margin | 10.1% | 12.0% (better) |
| FCF margin | 11.2% | 14.9% (better) |
| Return on equity | 15.1% | 38.6% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | – | 50.6% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.91 | 0.12 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | – | −0.29 |
| Interest coverage | – | 30.9× |
| Current ratio | 1.24 (better) | 1.09 |
| Altman Z-score | 1.30 | 3.32 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 5 | 8 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 1.9% (better) | 0.31% |
| Payout ratio | 31.4% | 6.2% |
| Years of dividend growth | – | 0 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | – | 9.0% |
| Buyback yield | 0.00% | 4.6% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 1.9% | 4.9% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 97.2% | 99.3% |
| Held by insiders | 0.13% | 1.4% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$72.6M (better) | −$77.1M |
| Superinvestors holding | 1 | 1 |
| Short interest, % of float | 2.5% | 3.6% |
Go deeper
- BKR stock overview
- BKR income statement
- BKR valuation and score
- FTI stock overview
- FTI income statement
- FTI valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.