Seek Returns logo

PWR vs. UNP: A Head-to-Head Stock Comparison

Updated on

Here’s a clear look at PWR and UNP, comparing key factors like historical performance, profitability, financial strength, growth, dividend, and valuation.

Company Profile

SymbolPWRUNP
Company NameQuanta Services, Inc.Union Pacific Corporation
CountryUnited StatesUnited States
GICS SectorIndustrialsIndustrials
GICS IndustryConstruction & EngineeringGround Transportation
Market Capitalization56.62 billion USD132.35 billion USD
ExchangeNYSENYSE
Listing DateFebruary 12, 1998January 2, 1980
Security TypeCommon StockCommon Stock

Historical Performance

This chart compares the performance of PWR and UNP by tracking the growth of an initial $10,000 investment in each. Use the tabs to select the desired time period. Data is adjusted for dividends and splits.

PWR vs. UNP: Growth of a $10,000 investment over the past one year.

Historical Performance at a Glance

SymbolPWRUNP
5-Day Price Return-1.91%0.23%
13-Week Price Return14.17%-3.33%
26-Week Price Return22.14%-8.35%
52-Week Price Return46.12%-5.73%
Month-to-Date Return-6.44%0.55%
Year-to-Date Return20.22%-2.13%
10-Day Avg. Volume1.31M3.61M
3-Month Avg. Volume1.24M3.74M
3-Month Volatility23.85%23.14%
Beta1.051.07

Profitability

Return on Equity (TTM)

PWR

13.09%

Construction & Engineering Industry

Max
29.61%
Q3
17.18%
Median
10.42%
Q1
8.10%
Min
-0.10%

PWR’s Return on Equity of 13.09% is on par with the norm for the Construction & Engineering industry, indicating its profitability relative to shareholder equity is typical for the sector.

UNP

42.18%

Ground Transportation Industry

Max
22.11%
Q3
13.84%
Median
9.66%
Q1
7.55%
Min
0.36%

UNP’s Return on Equity of 42.18% is exceptionally high, placing it well beyond the typical range for the Ground Transportation industry. This demonstrates a superior ability to generate profit from shareholder investments, though it could also be inflated by high financial leverage.

PWR vs. UNP: A comparison of their Return on Equity (TTM) against their respective Construction & Engineering and Ground Transportation industry benchmarks.

Net Profit Margin (TTM)

PWR

3.73%

Construction & Engineering Industry

Max
11.14%
Q3
6.17%
Median
3.85%
Q1
2.40%
Min
-0.05%

PWR’s Net Profit Margin of 3.73% is aligned with the median group of its peers in the Construction & Engineering industry. This indicates its ability to convert revenue into profit is typical for the sector.

UNP

28.43%

Ground Transportation Industry

Max
32.20%
Q3
18.59%
Median
7.11%
Q1
4.13%
Min
-10.38%

A Net Profit Margin of 28.43% places UNP in the upper quartile for the Ground Transportation industry, signifying strong profitability and more effective cost management than most of its peers.

PWR vs. UNP: A comparison of their Net Profit Margin (TTM) against their respective Construction & Engineering and Ground Transportation industry benchmarks.

Operating Profit Margin (TTM)

PWR

5.73%

Construction & Engineering Industry

Max
17.56%
Q3
9.36%
Median
5.46%
Q1
3.47%
Min
-1.93%

PWR’s Operating Profit Margin of 5.73% is around the midpoint for the Construction & Engineering industry, indicating that its efficiency in managing core business operations is typical for the sector.

UNP

40.33%

Ground Transportation Industry

Max
41.31%
Q3
23.16%
Median
11.33%
Q1
6.82%
Min
-12.08%

An Operating Profit Margin of 40.33% places UNP in the upper quartile for the Ground Transportation industry. This signals a strong ability to translate revenue into operating profit, outperforming most of its competitors in core business efficiency.

PWR vs. UNP: A comparison of their Operating Profit Margin (TTM) against their respective Construction & Engineering and Ground Transportation industry benchmarks.

Profitability at a Glance

SymbolPWRUNP
Return on Equity (TTM)13.09%42.18%
Return on Assets (TTM)5.08%10.19%
Net Profit Margin (TTM)3.73%28.43%
Operating Profit Margin (TTM)5.73%40.33%
Gross Profit Margin (TTM)15.04%79.89%

Financial Strength

Current Ratio (MRQ)

PWR

1.37

Construction & Engineering Industry

Max
1.98
Q3
1.53
Median
1.24
Q1
1.05
Min
0.66

PWR’s Current Ratio of 1.37 aligns with the median group of the Construction & Engineering industry, indicating that its short-term liquidity is in line with its sector peers.

UNP

0.65

Ground Transportation Industry

Max
2.03
Q3
1.26
Median
0.89
Q1
0.73
Min
0.38

UNP’s Current Ratio of 0.65 falls into the lower quartile for the Ground Transportation industry. This indicates a tighter liquidity situation and a more constrained capacity to handle short-term debt than many of its competitors.

PWR vs. UNP: A comparison of their Current Ratio (MRQ) against their respective Construction & Engineering and Ground Transportation industry benchmarks.

Debt-to-Equity Ratio (MRQ)

PWR

0.60

Construction & Engineering Industry

Max
2.49
Q3
1.19
Median
0.63
Q1
0.29
Min
0.00

PWR’s Debt-to-Equity Ratio of 0.60 is typical for the Construction & Engineering industry, indicating its use of leverage is in line with the sector norm. This suggests a balanced approach to its capital structure.

UNP

2.02

Ground Transportation Industry

Max
2.51
Q3
1.51
Median
1.06
Q1
0.47
Min
0.00

UNP’s leverage is in the upper quartile of the Ground Transportation industry, with a Debt-to-Equity Ratio of 2.02. While this approach can boost equity growth, it also exposes the company to greater financial vulnerability.

PWR vs. UNP: A comparison of their Debt-to-Equity Ratio (MRQ) against their respective Construction & Engineering and Ground Transportation industry benchmarks.

Interest Coverage Ratio (TTM)

PWR

10.76

Construction & Engineering Industry

Max
23.59
Q3
14.49
Median
8.20
Q1
5.26
Min
-6.49

PWR’s Interest Coverage Ratio of 10.76 is positioned comfortably within the norm for the Construction & Engineering industry, indicating a standard and healthy capacity to cover its interest payments.

UNP

8.23

Ground Transportation Industry

Max
51.07
Q3
22.54
Median
7.94
Q1
2.72
Min
-24.57

UNP’s Interest Coverage Ratio of 8.23 is positioned comfortably within the norm for the Ground Transportation industry, indicating a standard and healthy capacity to cover its interest payments.

PWR vs. UNP: A comparison of their Interest Coverage Ratio (TTM) against their respective Construction & Engineering and Ground Transportation industry benchmarks.

Financial Strength at a Glance

SymbolPWRUNP
Current Ratio (MRQ)1.370.65
Quick Ratio (MRQ)1.240.53
Debt-to-Equity Ratio (MRQ)0.602.02
Interest Coverage Ratio (TTM)10.768.23

Growth

Revenue Growth

PWR vs. UNP: A side-by-side comparison of their Revenue Growth for the MRQ (YoY), TTM (YoY), 3-Year CAGR, and 5-Year CAGR periods.

EPS Growth

PWR vs. UNP: A side-by-side comparison of their EPS Growth for the MRQ (YoY), TTM (YoY), 3-Year CAGR, and 5-Year CAGR periods.

Dividend

Dividend Yield (TTM)

PWR

0.10%

Construction & Engineering Industry

Max
6.28%
Q3
3.25%
Median
2.02%
Q1
0.23%
Min
0.00%

PWR’s Dividend Yield of 0.10% is in the lower quartile for the Construction & Engineering industry. This suggests the company’s strategy likely favors retaining earnings for growth over providing a high dividend income.

UNP

2.45%

Ground Transportation Industry

Max
5.44%
Q3
2.49%
Median
1.53%
Q1
0.39%
Min
0.00%

UNP’s Dividend Yield of 2.45% is consistent with its peers in the Ground Transportation industry, providing a dividend return that is standard for its sector.

PWR vs. UNP: A comparison of their Dividend Yield (TTM) against their respective Construction & Engineering and Ground Transportation industry benchmarks.

Dividend Payout Ratio (TTM)

PWR

5.92%

Construction & Engineering Industry

Max
139.17%
Q3
69.47%
Median
40.99%
Q1
10.51%
Min
0.00%

PWR’s Dividend Payout Ratio of 5.92% is in the lower quartile for the Construction & Engineering industry. This suggests a conservative dividend policy, with a strategic focus on reinvesting profits for future growth.

UNP

46.49%

Ground Transportation Industry

Max
137.07%
Q3
74.71%
Median
41.16%
Q1
15.12%
Min
0.00%

UNP’s Dividend Payout Ratio of 46.49% is within the typical range for the Ground Transportation industry, suggesting a balanced approach between shareholder payouts and company reinvestment.

PWR vs. UNP: A comparison of their Dividend Payout Ratio (TTM) against their respective Construction & Engineering and Ground Transportation industry benchmarks.

Dividend at a Glance

SymbolPWRUNP
Dividend Yield (TTM)0.10%2.45%
Dividend Payout Ratio (TTM)5.92%46.49%

Valuation

Price-to-Earnings Ratio (TTM)

PWR

59.76

Construction & Engineering Industry

Max
36.96
Q3
24.81
Median
15.45
Q1
12.51
Min
2.74

At 59.76, PWR’s P/E Ratio is exceptionally high, exceeding the typical maximum for the Construction & Engineering industry. This suggests the stock may be significantly overvalued compared to its peers and implies high market expectations that could be difficult to meet.

UNP

18.96

Ground Transportation Industry

Max
42.59
Q3
24.86
Median
16.38
Q1
12.79
Min
4.37

UNP’s P/E Ratio of 18.96 is within the middle range for the Ground Transportation industry. This suggests its valuation is in line with the sector average, representing neither a significant premium nor a discount compared to its peers.

PWR vs. UNP: A comparison of their Price-to-Earnings Ratio (TTM) against their respective Construction & Engineering and Ground Transportation industry benchmarks.

Price-to-Sales Ratio (TTM)

PWR

2.23

Construction & Engineering Industry

Max
3.22
Q3
1.63
Median
0.61
Q1
0.48
Min
0.11

PWR’s P/S Ratio of 2.23 is in the upper echelon for the Construction & Engineering industry. This means the company is valued richly on its revenue stream compared to its peers, suggesting the stock is priced for a high level of future performance.

UNP

5.39

Ground Transportation Industry

Max
4.02
Q3
2.20
Median
1.23
Q1
0.87
Min
0.22

With a P/S Ratio of 5.39, UNP trades at a valuation that eclipses even the highest in the Ground Transportation industry. This implies the market has priced in exceptionally optimistic scenarios for future revenue growth, posing considerable valuation risk.

PWR vs. UNP: A comparison of their Price-to-Sales Ratio (TTM) against their respective Construction & Engineering and Ground Transportation industry benchmarks.

Price-to-Book Ratio (MRQ)

PWR

7.13

Construction & Engineering Industry

Max
5.74
Q3
3.33
Median
1.49
Q1
1.20
Min
0.23

At 7.13, PWR’s P/B Ratio is at an extreme premium to the Construction & Engineering industry. This signifies that the market’s valuation is heavily reliant on future potential rather than its current net asset value, which can be a high-risk proposition.

UNP

8.46

Ground Transportation Industry

Max
4.95
Q3
2.78
Median
1.38
Q1
1.17
Min
0.64

At 8.46, UNP’s P/B Ratio is at an extreme premium to the Ground Transportation industry. This signifies that the market’s valuation is heavily reliant on future potential rather than its current net asset value, which can be a high-risk proposition.

PWR vs. UNP: A comparison of their Price-to-Book Ratio (MRQ) against their respective Construction & Engineering and Ground Transportation industry benchmarks.

Valuation at a Glance

SymbolPWRUNP
Price-to-Earnings Ratio (TTM)59.7618.96
Price-to-Sales Ratio (TTM)2.235.39
Price-to-Book Ratio (MRQ)7.138.46
Price-to-Free Cash Flow Ratio (TTM)42.7621.00