AR vs. GLNG: A Head-to-Head Stock Comparison
UpdatedHere’s a clear look at AR and GLNG, comparing key factors like performance, valuation metrics, dividends, and financial strength. It’s built for investors or anyone curious to see how these two stocks match up.
Company Overview
AR dominates in value with a market cap of 12.14 billion USD, eclipsing GLNG’s 4.02 billion USD by roughly 3.02×.
With betas of 0.66 for AR and 0.61 for GLNG, both show similar volatility profiles relative to the overall market.
| Symbol | AR | GLNG |
|---|---|---|
| Company Name | Antero Resources Corporation | Golar LNG Limited |
| Country | US | BM |
| Sector | Energy | Energy |
| Industry | Oil & Gas Exploration & Production | Oil & Gas Midstream |
| CEO | Mr. Paul M. Rady | Mr. Karl Fredrik Staubo |
| Price | 39.11 USD | 38.39 USD |
| Market Cap | 12.14 billion USD | 4.02 billion USD |
| Beta | 0.66 | 0.61 |
| Exchange | NYSE | NASDAQ |
| IPO Date | October 10, 2013 | July 15, 2003 |
| ADR | No | No |
Performance Comparison
This chart compares the performance of AR and GLNG over the past year by tracking the growth of an initial $10,000 investment in each (starting one year ago).
Hover over the lines to see the investment’s value and total return (%) at specific dates.
Data is adjusted for dividends and splits.
Valuation Metrics Comparison
The section examines key financial ratios to assess the valuation of AR and GLNG based on earnings, cash flow, sales, and book value. Pay attention to the following notable points where extreme values stand out.
- AR stands out with a premium P/E of 420.54, while GLNG at 80.76 remains within a more conventional earnings multiple.
- GLNG shows a negative forward PEG of -3.60, signaling expected earnings contraction, while AR at 124.18 maintains analysts’ projections for stable or improved profits.
- GLNG reports a negative Price-to-Free Cash Flow ratio of -33.33, showing a cash flow shortfall that could threaten its operational sustainability, while AR at 11.85 maintains positive cash flow.
| Symbol | AR | GLNG |
|---|---|---|
| Price-to-Earnings Ratio (P/E, TTM) | 420.54 | 80.76 |
| Forward PEG Ratio (TTM) | 124.18 | -3.60 |
| Price-to-Sales Ratio (P/S, TTM) | 2.63 | 15.43 |
| Price-to-Book Ratio (P/B, TTM) | 1.69 | 1.99 |
| Price-to-Free Cash Flow Ratio (P/FCF, TTM) | 11.85 | -33.33 |
| EV-to-EBITDA (TTM) | 14.75 | 31.81 |
| EV-to-Sales (TTM) | 3.45 | 18.85 |
| EV-to-Free Cash Flow (TTM) | 15.56 | -40.74 |
Dividend Comparison
AR offers a 0% dividend yield, suggesting it may be reinvesting available cash back into the business for future growth, while GLNG provides a 2.60% dividend yield, giving investors a steady income stream.
| Symbol | AR | GLNG |
|---|---|---|
| Dividend Yield (TTM) | 0.00% | 2.60% |
Financial Strength Metrics Comparison
This section dives into the financial resilience of AR and GLNG, spotlighting key metrics like liquidity, leverage, and debt coverage. Check out the standout observations below where notable differences or extremes pop up.
- With current ratios of 0.39 and 0.88, both AR and GLNG have less current assets than short-term liabilities, which could strain their working capital and force reliance on additional financing.
- AR’s quick ratio of 0.39 suggests it may struggle to cover immediate liabilities without selling inventory or raising cash, whereas GLNG at 0.88 maintains a comfortable buffer of liquid assets.
| Symbol | AR | GLNG |
|---|---|---|
| Current Ratio (TTM) | 0.39 | 0.88 |
| Quick Ratio (TTM) | 0.39 | 0.88 |
| Debt-to-Equity Ratio (TTM) | 0.53 | 0.72 |
| Debt-to-Assets Ratio (TTM) | 0.29 | 0.33 |
| Interest Coverage Ratio (TTM) | 2.35 | 51.41 |