Energy Transfer LP vs Targa Resources
ET and TRGP 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 TRGP compare
Energy Transfer LP and Targa Resources are about the same size, with market caps of $67.0B and $63.5B.
Energy Transfer LP grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (56.1% versus 4.7% for Targa Resources).
Targa Resources keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 13.5% compared with 4.4% at Energy Transfer LP.
Both pay dividends: Energy Transfer LP yields 5.2% and Targa Resources 1.2%.
Targa Resources 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 | ET | TRGP |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $67.0B | $63.5B |
| Share price | $19.45 | $296.30 |
| Change, 1 year | 16.5% | 71.0% |
| Change, 5 years | 124% | 453% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.58 | 0.66 |
| Employees | 7,965 | 3,570 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 9 | 10 (better) |
| Valuation score | 3 (better) | 1 |
| Growth score | 2 | 2 |
| Performance score | 0 | 5 (better) |
| Health score | 1 | 1 |
| Dividend score | 3 (better) | 1 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | – | 26.2× |
| P/S | 0.5× (better) | 3.5× |
| P/B | – | 16.7× |
| EV/EBITDA | 7.6× (better) | 14.2× |
| P/FCF | 11.0× (better) | 68.0× |
| PEG | – | 0.88 |
| FCF yield | 9.1% (better) | 1.5% |
| Fair value | $37.22 | $230.09 |
| Margin of safety | 47.7% (better) | −28.8% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 56.1% (better) | 4.7% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 17.0% (better) | 15.6% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 19.5% | 41.5% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | – | 52.4% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 21.3% | 41.8% (better) |
| Operating margin | 9.2% | 22.5% (better) |
| Net margin | 4.4% | 13.5% (better) |
| FCF margin | 4.9% | 5.1% (better) |
| Return on equity | – | 75.0% |
| Return on invested capital | – | 15.3% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | – | 5.05 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 3.85 | 3.29 (better) |
| Interest coverage | 3.1× | – |
| Current ratio | 1.16 (better) | 0.74 |
| Altman Z-score | – | 2.68 |
| Piotroski F-score | 5 | 6 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 5.2% (better) | 1.2% |
| Years of dividend growth | – | 4 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | – | 25.4% |
| Buyback yield | – | 0.35% |
| Shareholder yield | 5.2% (better) | 1.5% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 32.1% | 95.1% |
| Held by insiders | 10.4% | 1.3% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | $21.5M (better) | −$30.8M |
| Superinvestors holding | 4 (better) | 1 |
| Short interest, % of float | 0.79% | 3.1% |
Go deeper
- ET stock overview
- ET income statement
- ET valuation and score
- TRGP stock overview
- TRGP income statement
- TRGP valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.