Enterprise Products Partners L.P. vs Energy Transfer LP
EPD and ET side by side, both in gas production and distribution. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How EPD and ET compare
Enterprise Products Partners L.P. is the larger company, worth 1.2 times as much as Energy Transfer LP ($80.2B against $66.9B).
Energy Transfer LP grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (56.1% versus 21.5% for Enterprise Products Partners L.P.).
Enterprise Products Partners L.P. keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 10.2% compared with 4.4% at Energy Transfer LP.
Both pay dividends: Enterprise Products Partners L.P. yields 4.5% and Energy Transfer LP 5.2%.
Enterprise Products Partners L.P. scores higher on the StockData Score (10 against 9 for Energy Transfer LP), 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 | EPD | ET |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $80.2B | $66.9B |
| Share price | $37.16 | $19.43 |
| Change, 1 year | 18.8% | 18.1% |
| Change, 5 years | 71.2% | 123% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.30 | 0.58 |
| Employees | – | 7,965 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 10 (better) | 9 |
| Valuation score | 2 | 3 (better) |
| Growth score | 2 | 2 |
| Performance score | 1 (better) | 0 |
| Health score | 2 (better) | 1 |
| Dividend score | 3 | 3 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 12.4× | – |
| P/S | 1.2× | 0.5× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 13.9× | 7.6× (better) |
| P/FCF | 16.7× | 11.0× (better) |
| FCF yield | 6.0% | 9.1% (better) |
| Fair value | $36.05 | $36.99 |
| Margin of safety | −3.1% | 47.5% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 21.5% | 56.1% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 14.1% | 17.0% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 13.9% | 19.5% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 14.1% | – |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 24.1% (better) | 21.3% |
| Operating margin | 12.7% (better) | 9.2% |
| Net margin | 10.2% (better) | 4.4% |
| FCF margin | 7.5% (better) | 4.9% |
| Financial health | ||
| Net debt / EBITDA | 4.07 | 3.85 (better) |
| Interest coverage | 5.3× (better) | 3.1× |
| Current ratio | 0.93 | 1.16 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 6 (better) | 5 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 4.5% | 5.2% (better) |
| Buyback yield | 0.54% | – |
| Shareholder yield | 5.0% | 5.2% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 25.2% | 32.1% |
| Held by insiders | 33.0% | 10.4% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | $581K | $21.5M (better) |
| Superinvestors holding | 3 | 4 (better) |
| Short interest, % of float | – | 0.79% |
Go deeper
- EPD stock overview
- EPD income statement
- EPD valuation and score
- ET stock overview
- ET income statement
- ET valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.