Halliburton vs Patterson UTI Energy
HAL and PTEN side by side, both in oil and gas field services. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How HAL and PTEN compare
Halliburton is the larger company, worth 6.9 times as much as Patterson UTI Energy ($27.2B against $4.0B).
Halliburton grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (1.5% versus 0.01% for Patterson UTI Energy).
Halliburton keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 8.9% compared with −0.52% at Patterson UTI Energy.
Both pay dividends: Halliburton yields 2.1% and Patterson UTI Energy 3.6%.
Halliburton scores higher on the StockData Score (15 against 9 for Patterson UTI Energy), 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 | HAL | PTEN |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $27.2B | $4.0B |
| Share price | $32.93 | $10.42 |
| Change, 1 year | 18.8% | 69.4% |
| Change, 5 years | 49.4% | 41.6% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.78 | 1.08 |
| Employees | 46K | 7,900 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 15 (better) | 9 |
| Valuation score | 3 (better) | 1 |
| Growth score | 0 | 2 (better) |
| Performance score | 4 (better) | 1 |
| Health score | 5 (better) | 3 |
| Dividend score | 3 (better) | 2 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 13.8× | – |
| P/S | 1.2× | 0.8× (better) |
| P/B | 2.4× | 1.3× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 6.4× (better) | 117× |
| P/FCF | 17.0× | 14.9× (better) |
| FCF yield | 5.9% | 6.7% (better) |
| Fair value | $34.65 | $10.63 |
| Margin of safety | 5.0% (better) | 2.0% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 1.5% (better) | 0.01% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 9.0% | 33.8% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 52.9% | – |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 58.3% | – |
| Profitability | ||
| Operating margin | 12.6% (better) | 0.86% |
| Net margin | 8.9% (better) | −0.52% |
| FCF margin | 7.1% (better) | 5.5% |
| Return on equity | 18.8% (better) | −0.79% |
| Return on invested capital | 26.6% (better) | 0.80% |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.01 (better) | 0.40 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | −0.44 | 21.49 (better) |
| Interest coverage | – | 0.6× |
| Current ratio | 2.02 (better) | 1.73 |
| Altman Z-score | 3.46 (better) | 1.70 |
| Piotroski F-score | 4 | 6 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 2.1% | 3.6% (better) |
| Payout ratio | 28.4% | – |
| Years of dividend growth | – | 0 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | – | 26.2% |
| Buyback yield | 3.0% (better) | 0.85% |
| Shareholder yield | 5.0% (better) | 4.5% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 88.9% | 112% |
| Held by insiders | 0.43% | 1.9% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$38.4M | −$33.9M (better) |
| Short interest, % of float | 4.0% | 7.3% |
Go deeper
- HAL stock overview
- HAL income statement
- HAL valuation and score
- PTEN stock overview
- PTEN income statement
- PTEN valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.