Energy Transfer LP vs Kinder Morgan
ET and KMI 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 ET and KMI compare
Energy Transfer LP and Kinder Morgan are about the same size, with market caps of $66.9B and $71.1B.
Energy Transfer LP grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (56.1% versus 11.7% for Kinder Morgan).
Kinder Morgan keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 19.6% compared with 4.4% at Energy Transfer LP.
Both pay dividends: Energy Transfer LP yields 5.2% and Kinder Morgan 2.8%.
Kinder Morgan scores higher on the StockData Score (11 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 | ET | KMI |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $66.9B | $71.1B |
| Share price | $19.42 | $31.92 |
| Change, 1 year | 16.3% | 18.2% |
| Change, 5 years | 123% | 97.5% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.58 | 0.50 |
| Employees | 7,965 | 11K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 9 | 11 (better) |
| Valuation score | 3 (better) | 2 |
| Growth score | 2 (better) | 0 |
| Performance score | 0 | 3 (better) |
| Health score | 1 | 2 (better) |
| Dividend score | 3 | 4 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | – | 19.7× |
| P/S | 0.5× (better) | 3.9× |
| P/B | – | 2.3× |
| EV/EBITDA | 7.6× (better) | 13.4× |
| P/FCF | 11.0× (better) | 23.1× |
| PEG | – | 2.84 |
| FCF yield | 9.1% (better) | 4.3% |
| Fair value | $37.24 | $29.06 |
| Margin of safety | 47.9% (better) | −9.8% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 56.1% (better) | 11.7% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 17.0% (better) | 7.7% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 19.5% | 32.1% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | – | 31.7% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | – | 93.9% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 21.3% | 66.4% (better) |
| Operating margin | 9.2% | 29.0% (better) |
| Net margin | 4.4% | 19.6% (better) |
| FCF margin | 4.9% | 16.8% (better) |
| Return on equity | – | 11.6% |
| Return on invested capital | – | 6.5% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | – | 1.05 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 3.85 (better) | 4.12 |
| Interest coverage | 3.1× | – |
| Current ratio | 1.16 (better) | 0.67 |
| Altman Z-score | – | 1.27 |
| Piotroski F-score | 5 | 6 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 5.2% (better) | 2.8% |
| Payout ratio | – | 73.2% |
| Years of dividend growth | – | 8 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | – | 2.3% |
| Shareholder yield | 5.2% (better) | 2.8% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 32.1% | 69.7% |
| Held by insiders | 10.4% | 12.4% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | $21.5M (better) | $12.1M |
| Superinvestors holding | 4 | – |
| Short interest, % of float | 0.79% | 2.2% |
Go deeper
- ET stock overview
- ET income statement
- ET valuation and score
- KMI stock overview
- KMI income statement
- KMI valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.