LandBridge vs Texas Pacific Land
LB and TPL side by side, both in miscellaneous investing. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How LB and TPL compare
Texas Pacific Land is the larger company, worth 3.5 times as much as LandBridge ($19.4B against $5.6B).
On earnings, Texas Pacific Land is cheaper: it trades at 33.1× trailing earnings, against 62.3× for LandBridge.
LandBridge grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (37.3% versus 25.3% for Texas Pacific Land).
Texas Pacific Land keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 60.7% compared with 17.1% at LandBridge.
Both pay dividends: LandBridge yields 0.63% and Texas Pacific Land 0.83%.
Texas Pacific Land scores higher on the StockData Score (15 against 10 for LandBridge), 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 | LB | TPL |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $5.6B | $19.4B |
| Share price | $72.90 | $281.42 |
| Change, 1 year | −2.8% | −15.1% |
| Change, 5 years | – | 103% |
| Beta (5Y) | −0.57 | 0.67 |
| Employees | 5 | 114 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 10 | 15 (better) |
| Valuation score | 0 | 2 (better) |
| Growth score | 2 | 2 |
| Performance score | 3 | 5 (better) |
| Health score | 3 | 3 |
| Dividend score | 2 | 3 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 62.3× | 33.1× (better) |
| P/S | 22.9× | 20.1× (better) |
| P/B | 14.4× | 10.8× (better) |
| EV/EBITDA | 39.6× | 23.6× (better) |
| P/FCF | 33.7× | – |
| PEG | – | 11.90 |
| FCF yield | 3.0% | – |
| Fair value | $19.11 | $237.32 |
| Margin of safety | −281% | −18.6% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 37.3% (better) | 25.3% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | – | 21.4% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 71.3% (better) | 23.3% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | – | 23.3% |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | – | 22.5% |
| Profitability | ||
| Operating margin | 63.4% | 75.5% (better) |
| Net margin | 17.1% | 60.7% (better) |
| FCF margin | 67.8% | – |
| Return on equity | 12.7% | 37.1% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | 15.9% | 51.2% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 1.94 | – |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 4.28 | – |
| Interest coverage | – | 201× |
| Current ratio | 2.78 | 5.41 (better) |
| Altman Z-score | 4.84 | 65.96 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 5 | 6 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 0.63% | 0.83% (better) |
| Payout ratio | 147% | 27.5% |
| Years of dividend growth | – | 0 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | – | 13.9% |
| Buyback yield | – | 0.00% |
| Shareholder yield | 0.63% | 0.83% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 36.9% | 72.8% |
| Held by insiders | – | 30.1% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$191M | −$2.3M (better) |
| Short interest, % of float | – | 8.8% |
Go deeper
- LB stock overview
- LB income statement
- LB valuation and score
- TPL stock overview
- TPL income statement
- TPL valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.