Duke Energy vs PG&E
DUK and PCG side by side, both in combination electric and gas, and other utility. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How DUK and PCG compare
Duke Energy is the larger company, worth 2.8 times as much as PG&E ($101B against $35.5B).
On earnings, PG&E is cheaper: it trades at 9.8× trailing earnings, against 19.4× for Duke Energy.
Duke Energy grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (5.2% versus 4.1% for PG&E).
Both pay dividends: Duke Energy yields 3.3% and PG&E 1.5%.
PG&E scores higher on the StockData Score (11 against 10 for Duke 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 | DUK | PCG |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $101B | $35.5B |
| Share price | $129.16 | $13.25 |
| Change, 1 year | 4.2% | −21.2% |
| Change, 5 years | 31.2% | 7.0% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.20 | 0.50 |
| Employees | 26K | 26K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 10 | 11 (better) |
| Valuation score | 3 | 6 (better) |
| Growth score | 1 | 2 (better) |
| Performance score | 4 (better) | 0 |
| Health score | 0 | 2 (better) |
| Dividend score | 2 (better) | 1 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 19.4× | 9.8× (better) |
| P/S | 3.1× | 1.4× (better) |
| P/B | 1.8× | 1.0× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 11.4× (better) | 19.2× |
| PEG | 0.75 (better) | 0.82 |
| FCF yield | −4.2% (better) | −14.0% |
| Fair value | $137.32 | $20.88 |
| Margin of safety | 5.9% | 36.5% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 5.2% (better) | 4.1% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 6.4% (better) | 6.2% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 8.2% | – |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 8.3% | 13.4% (better) |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 29.7% | – |
| Profitability | ||
| Operating margin | 28.3% (better) | 20.2% |
| Net margin | 16.1% | – |
| FCF margin | −13.1% (better) | −19.3% |
| Return on equity | 9.9% | – |
| Return on invested capital | 5.6% (better) | 5.5% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 1.67 (better) | 1.88 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 5.34 (better) | 12.32 |
| Interest coverage | 2.4× (better) | 1.6× |
| Current ratio | 0.66 | 1.03 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 0.73 (better) | 0.50 |
| Piotroski F-score | 6 | – |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 3.3% (better) | 1.5% |
| Years of dividend growth | 10 | – |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 2.0% | – |
| Shareholder yield | 3.3% (better) | 1.5% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 69.9% | 80.6% |
| Held by insiders | 0.17% | 0.21% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$9.0M | −$7.8M (better) |
| Short interest, % of float | – | 1.6% |
Go deeper
- DUK stock overview
- DUK income statement
- DUK valuation and score
- PCG stock overview
- PCG income statement
- PCG valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.