Kinder Morgan vs Targa Resources
KMI 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 KMI and TRGP compare
Kinder Morgan and Targa Resources are about the same size, with market caps of $71.1B and $63.8B.
On earnings, Kinder Morgan is cheaper: it trades at 19.7× trailing earnings, against 26.3× for Targa Resources.
Kinder Morgan grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (11.7% versus 4.7% for Targa Resources).
Kinder Morgan keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 19.6% compared with 13.5% at Targa Resources.
Both pay dividends: Kinder Morgan yields 2.8% and Targa Resources 1.2%.
Kinder Morgan scores higher on the StockData Score (11 against 10 for Targa Resources), 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 | KMI | TRGP |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $71.1B | $63.8B |
| Share price | $31.92 | $297.33 |
| Change, 1 year | 18.2% | 74.3% |
| Change, 5 years | 97.5% | 455% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.50 | 0.66 |
| Employees | 11K | 3,570 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 11 (better) | 10 |
| Valuation score | 2 (better) | 1 |
| Growth score | 0 | 2 (better) |
| Performance score | 3 | 5 (better) |
| Health score | 2 (better) | 1 |
| Dividend score | 4 (better) | 1 |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 19.7× (better) | 26.3× |
| P/S | 3.9× | 3.5× (better) |
| P/B | 2.3× (better) | 16.7× |
| EV/EBITDA | 13.4× (better) | 14.3× |
| P/FCF | 23.1× (better) | 68.3× |
| PEG | 2.84 | 0.88 (better) |
| FCF yield | 4.3% (better) | 1.5% |
| Fair value | $29.06 | $230.35 |
| Margin of safety | −9.8% (better) | −29.1% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 11.7% (better) | 4.7% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 7.7% | 15.6% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 32.1% | 41.5% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 31.7% | 52.4% (better) |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 93.9% | – |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | 66.4% (better) | 41.8% |
| Operating margin | 29.0% (better) | 22.5% |
| Net margin | 19.6% (better) | 13.5% |
| FCF margin | 16.8% (better) | 5.1% |
| Return on equity | 11.6% | 75.0% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | 6.5% | 15.3% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 1.05 (better) | 5.05 |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 4.12 | 3.29 (better) |
| Current ratio | 0.67 | 0.74 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 1.27 | 2.69 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 6 | 6 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 2.8% (better) | 1.2% |
| Payout ratio | 73.2% | – |
| Years of dividend growth | 8 (better) | 4 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 2.3% | 25.4% (better) |
| Buyback yield | – | 0.35% |
| Shareholder yield | 2.8% (better) | 1.5% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 69.7% | 95.1% |
| Held by insiders | 12.4% | 1.3% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | $12.1M (better) | −$30.8M |
| Superinvestors holding | – | 1 |
| Short interest, % of float | 2.2% | 3.1% |
Go deeper
- KMI stock overview
- KMI income statement
- KMI valuation and score
- TRGP stock overview
- TRGP income statement
- TRGP valuation and score
Other comparisons
- EPD vs KMI
- EPD vs TRGP
- ET vs KMI
- ET vs TRGP
- KMI vs OKE
- KMI vs VG
- KMI vs WMB
- LNG vs TRGP
- OKE vs TRGP
- TRGP vs WMB
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.