Baker Hughes vs NOV
BKR and NOV 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 NOV compare
Baker Hughes is the larger company, worth 7.6 times as much as NOV ($49.1B against $6.4B).
Baker Hughes grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (3.7% versus −0.98% for NOV).
Baker Hughes keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 10.1% compared with 1.6% at NOV.
Both pay dividends: Baker Hughes yields 1.9% and NOV 2.4%.
NOV scores higher on the StockData Score (10 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 | NOV |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $49.1B | $6.4B |
| Share price | $49.44 | $18.09 |
| Change, 1 year | 4.0% | 17.5% |
| Change, 5 years | 119% | 50.4% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.68 | 0.82 |
| Employees | 56K | 35K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 8 | 10 (better) |
| Valuation score | 0 | 2 (better) |
| Growth score | 0 | 1 (better) |
| Performance score | 3 (better) | 0 |
| Health score | 2 | 5 (better) |
| Dividend score | 3 (better) | 2 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | – | 45.2× |
| P/S | 1.7× | 0.7× (better) |
| P/B | 2.4× | 1.0× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | – | 8.5× |
| P/FCF | 15.2× (better) | 23.9× |
| FCF yield | 6.6% (better) | 4.2% |
| Fair value | $27.01 | $16.12 |
| Margin of safety | −83.0% | −12.2% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 3.7% (better) | −0.98% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 6.0% | 7.5% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 0.24% (better) | −62.7% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | – | −60.0% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | – | 20.7% |
| Operating margin | – | 5.5% |
| Net margin | 10.1% (better) | 1.6% |
| FCF margin | 11.2% (better) | 3.1% |
| Return on equity | 15.1% (better) | 2.3% |
| Return on invested capital | – | 3.4% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.91 | 0.27 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | – | 0.77 |
| Interest coverage | – | 5.5× |
| Current ratio | 1.24 | 2.51 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 1.31 | 2.00 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 5 | 5 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 1.9% | 2.4% (better) |
| Payout ratio | 31.4% | 109% |
| Years of dividend growth | – | 2 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | – | 59.1% |
| Buyback yield | 0.00% | 3.6% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | 1.9% | 6.0% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 97.2% | 109% |
| Held by insiders | 0.13% | 1.2% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$72.6M | −$4.6M (better) |
| Superinvestors holding | 1 | 1 |
| Short interest, % of float | 2.5% | 7.8% |
Go deeper
- BKR stock overview
- BKR income statement
- BKR valuation and score
- NOV stock overview
- NOV income statement
- NOV valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.