TechnipFMC vs Weatherford International
FTI and WFRD side by side, both in construction, mining, and materials handling. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How FTI and WFRD compare
TechnipFMC is the larger company, worth 4.0 times as much as Weatherford International ($25.2B against $6.3B).
On earnings, Weatherford International is cheaper: it trades at 15.4× trailing earnings, against 20.4× for TechnipFMC.
TechnipFMC grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (9.1% versus −5.7% for Weatherford International).
TechnipFMC keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 12.0% compared with 8.6% at Weatherford International.
Both pay dividends: TechnipFMC yields 0.31% and Weatherford International 1.3%.
TechnipFMC scores higher on the StockData Score (18 against 14 for Weatherford International), 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 | FTI | WFRD |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $25.2B | $6.3B |
| Share price | $64.92 | $86.45 |
| Change, 1 year | 49.1% | 19.2% |
| Change, 5 years | 942% | 196% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.89 | 0.99 |
| Employees | 37K | 17K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 18 (better) | 14 |
| Valuation score | 4 (better) | 3 |
| Growth score | 1 | 1 |
| Performance score | 4 | 4 |
| Health score | 6 (better) | 3 |
| Dividend score | 3 | 3 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 20.4× | 15.4× (better) |
| P/S | 2.4× | 1.3× (better) |
| P/B | 7.6× | 3.2× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 11.2× | 7.6× (better) |
| P/FCF | 15.8× | 10.8× (better) |
| PEG | – | 0.10 |
| FCF yield | 6.3% | 9.2% (better) |
| Fair value | $79.14 | $106.01 |
| Margin of safety | 18.0% | 18.5% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 9.1% (better) | −5.7% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 8.7% (better) | 5.9% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 35.8% (better) | 0.00% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 42.0% (better) | 1.6% |
| Profitability | ||
| Operating margin | 16.8% (better) | 12.4% |
| Net margin | 12.0% (better) | 8.6% |
| FCF margin | 14.9% (better) | 12.3% |
| Return on equity | 38.6% (better) | 23.0% |
| Return on invested capital | 50.6% (better) | 25.2% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.12 (better) | 0.76 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | −0.29 | 0.37 (better) |
| Interest coverage | 30.9× | – |
| Current ratio | 1.09 | 2.04 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 3.31 (better) | 2.51 |
| Piotroski F-score | 8 (better) | 6 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 0.31% | 1.3% (better) |
| Payout ratio | 6.2% | 19.0% |
| Years of dividend growth | 0 | 1 (better) |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 9.0% | – |
| Buyback yield | 4.6% (better) | 0.97% |
| Shareholder yield | 5.0% (better) | 2.2% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 99.3% | 105% |
| Held by insiders | 1.4% | 2.1% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$77.1M | −$18.2M (better) |
| Superinvestors holding | 1 | – |
| Short interest, % of float | 3.6% | 5.8% |
Go deeper
- FTI stock overview
- FTI income statement
- FTI valuation and score
- WFRD stock overview
- WFRD income statement
- WFRD valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.