Energy Transfer LP vs Oneok
ET and OKE 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 OKE compare
Energy Transfer LP is the larger company, worth 1.2 times as much as Oneok ($66.9B against $55.6B).
Energy Transfer LP grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (56.1% versus 36.8% for Oneok).
Oneok keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 9.4% compared with 4.4% at Energy Transfer LP.
Both pay dividends: Energy Transfer LP yields 5.2% and Oneok 3.6%.
Oneok scores higher on the StockData Score (15 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 | OKE |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $66.9B | $55.6B |
| Share price | $19.43 | $88.17 |
| Change, 1 year | 18.1% | 29.9% |
| Change, 5 years | 123% | 43.6% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.58 | 0.72 |
| Employees | 7,965 | 6,326 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 9 | 15 (better) |
| Valuation score | 3 | 4 (better) |
| Growth score | 2 | 3 (better) |
| Performance score | 0 | 3 (better) |
| Health score | 1 | 2 (better) |
| Dividend score | 3 | 3 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | – | 13.7× |
| P/S | 0.5× (better) | 1.3× |
| P/B | – | 2.4× |
| EV/EBITDA | 7.6× (better) | 12.1× |
| P/FCF | 11.0× (better) | 22.0× |
| PEG | – | 1.12 |
| FCF yield | 9.1% (better) | 4.5% |
| Fair value | $36.99 | $101.65 |
| Margin of safety | 47.5% (better) | 13.3% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 56.1% (better) | 36.8% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 17.0% | 31.5% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 19.5% | 21.8% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | – | 18.4% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | – | 30.7% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 21.3% | 25.2% (better) |
| Operating margin | 9.2% | 14.2% (better) |
| Net margin | 4.4% | 9.4% (better) |
| FCF margin | 4.9% | 5.9% (better) |
| Return on equity | – | 17.9% |
| Return on invested capital | – | 9.7% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | – | 1.22 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 3.85 | 3.69 (better) |
| Interest coverage | 3.1× | 3.5× (better) |
| Current ratio | 1.16 (better) | 0.84 |
| Altman Z-score | – | 1.70 |
| Piotroski F-score | 5 | 5 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 5.2% (better) | 3.6% |
| Payout ratio | – | 65.7% |
| Years of dividend growth | – | 3 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | – | 2.0% |
| Shareholder yield | 5.2% (better) | 3.6% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 32.1% | 83.7% |
| Held by insiders | 10.4% | 0.20% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | $21.5M (better) | $0 |
| Superinvestors holding | 4 | – |
| Short interest, % of float | 0.79% | 4.3% |
Go deeper
- ET stock overview
- ET income statement
- ET valuation and score
- OKE stock overview
- OKE income statement
- OKE valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.