Energy Stocks Face-Off: Baker Hughes (BKR) vs. Mammoth Energy (TUSK)

Thinking about investing in energy stocks like Baker Hughes (NASDAQ:BKR) or Mammoth Energy Services (NASDAQ:TUSK)? It’s a common question, and understanding their differences can make a big impact on your portfolio. We’re here to break down the key points about these two energy sector players:

• How much investment risk comes with each stock, and what does that mean for your portfolio?
• Do big investors and company insiders back Baker Hughes or Mammoth Energy more?
• What do financial analysts on Wall Street say about their future potential?
• Which of these energy companies offers a more reliable dividend payout?
• How do their earnings, revenue, and overall financial health compare?
• Which business is better at turning sales into profit?
• What exactly do Baker Hughes and Mammoth Energy Services do in the energy industry?

Let’s dive into these questions to help you decide between Baker Hughes vs. Mammoth Energy Services for your investment strategy.

How much investment risk comes with Baker Hughes (BKR) and Mammoth Energy Services (TUSK) stock?

When you’re looking at stocks, understanding their volatility is super important for gauging investment risk. Baker Hughes (BKR) has a beta of 0.99, which simply means its stock price tends to move pretty much in line with the broader market (the S&P 500), but with slightly less swing. This suggests it’s a relatively stable option. On the flip side, Mammoth Energy Services (TUSK) carries a beta of 1.43, telling us its stock price is about 43% more volatile than the S&P 500. More volatility means bigger price swings, offering the chance for higher returns but also carrying increased risk. So, when comparing ‘BKR vs TUSK stock‘ on risk, you’re weighing stability with BKR against the higher-risk, potentially higher-reward path of TUSK in the dynamic energy sector.

Do big investors and company insiders back Baker Hughes (BKR) or Mammoth Energy (TUSK) more?

The amount of institutional and insider ownership can give you a peek into how much confidence major players have in a company. Baker Hughes (BKR) shows impressive institutional ownership at 92.1%, signaling strong support from big financial groups who believe in its long-term growth. Insider ownership for BKR is quite small at 0.3%. Mammoth Energy Services (TUSK) also has solid institutional backing at 79.7%, though a bit less than BKR. Interestingly, TUSK has higher insider ownership at 2.1%. While BKR’s strong institutional investment points to its perceived stability and broad appeal, TUSK’s higher insider stake might suggest greater internal alignment. This is a key factor when you’re looking at ‘Baker Hughes vs Mammoth Energy Services‘ from an ownership perspective.

What do financial analysts say about investing in Baker Hughes (BKR) versus Mammoth Energy (TUSK)?

Financial analysts offer expert views on a stock’s potential, and their recommendations can be quite telling. Baker Hughes (BKR) gets strong endorsements, with 22 ‘Buy’ and 4 ‘Hold’ ratings, and no ‘Sells.’ This gives it a solid average rating score of 2.85. Analysts also project a consensus price target of $52.57 for BKR, suggesting a potential upside of 9.76%. This positive sentiment really highlights confidence in Baker Hughes’ future. Conversely, Mammoth Energy Services (TUSK) doesn’t look as favorable, with one ‘Sell’ rating and no ‘Hold’ or ‘Buy’ recommendations, leading to a low score of 1.00. The clear difference in ‘analyst ratings BKR‘ compared to ‘analyst ratings TUSK‘ suggests Baker Hughes is the more favored investment by equity research professionals within the energy sector.

Which energy stock has a better dividend: Baker Hughes (BKR) or Mammoth Energy Services (TUSK)?

For investors focused on income, a company’s dividend policy is a huge deal. Baker Hughes (BKR) pays an annual dividend of $0.92 per share, which works out to a 1.9% yield and a sustainable 30.1% payout ratio. What’s really good is that BKR has consistently raised its dividend for four years in a row, showing a pattern of reliability. Mammoth Energy Services (TUSK), on the other hand, offers a much higher annual dividend of $0.50 per share, giving an attractive 21.9% yield. However, TUSK’s negative payout ratio of -76.9% raises some serious questions about whether these dividends can actually last, as current earnings aren’t covering the payments. So, while TUSK might look like the ‘better dividend stock‘ by yield alone, BKR’s consistent growth and sensible payout ratio offer greater long-term security for investors prioritizing sustainable income in their ‘Baker Hughes dividend‘ versus ‘Mammoth Energy Services dividend‘ assessment.

How do Baker Hughes (BKR) and Mammoth Energy (TUSK) compare on earnings and valuation?

Diving into earnings and valuation metrics helps us see the core financial muscle of these companies. Baker Hughes (BKR) operates on a much larger scale, pulling in $27.61 billion in revenue and achieving $2.98 billion in net income, resulting in $3.06 EPS. Its valuation metrics include a Price/Sales Ratio of 1.71 and a P/E Ratio of 15.65. In contrast, Mammoth Energy Services (TUSK) reported $188.57 million in revenue and a negative net income of -$207.33 million, leading to ($0.65) EPS. TUSK trades at a lower Price/Sales Ratio of 0.58 and a negative P/E Ratio of -3.51 because it’s not currently profitable. While TUSK might seem cheaper by some measures, Baker Hughes clearly leads in generating revenue and earnings. This big difference in ‘Baker Hughes earnings‘ and ‘Mammoth Energy Services valuation‘ really highlights BKR’s current financial strength against TUSK’s challenges.

Is Baker Hughes (BKR) or Mammoth Energy (TUSK) more profitable and efficient?

Looking at profitability metrics shows us how efficiently a company runs its operations. Baker Hughes (BKR) looks robust with an 11.04% net margin, meaning it keeps a good chunk of its sales as profit. Its Return on Equity (ROE) is an impressive 14.56%, and Return on Assets (ROA) is 6.53%, indicating it’s great at using both shareholder money and its assets effectively. These numbers really confirm ‘Baker Hughes profitability‘ as a significant strength. However, Mammoth Energy Services (TUSK) paints a worrying picture with a negative net margin of -18.13%, signaling losses on its sales. Its ROE of -29.24% and ROA of -19.35% suggest it’s actually destroying shareholder value and isn’t managing its assets efficiently at all. This sharp contrast in ‘Mammoth Energy Services risk‘ versus BKR’s strong profitability clearly positions Baker Hughes as the more fundamentally sound and efficient business.

What exactly do Baker Hughes (BKR) and Mammoth Energy Services (TUSK) do in the energy sector?

To really get a grip on the financial differences between these companies, it helps to understand their main businesses and how they operate within the larger energy industry. These company profiles will give you context for their financial performance.

What kind of energy technology does Baker Hughes (BKR) specialize in?

Baker Hughes Company (NASDAQ:BKR) is a global powerhouse in energy technology. They offer a huge range of technologies and services across the entire energy and industrial supply chain. They have two main parts: Oilfield Services & Equipment (OFSE) and Industrial & Energy Technology (IET). The OFSE segment is super important for finding and producing oil and gas, covering everything from exploration to shutting down old sites, including drilling, completions, and specialized chemicals. They work with everyone from huge international oil companies to smaller independent operators. The IET segment focuses on cool, advanced gas technology like turbines, compressors, and complete solutions for oil and gas, LNG, and even carbon solutions. Plus, IET provides smart monitoring, inspection services, and precision sensors. This wide variety of offerings shows Baker Hughes’ key role as a comprehensive tech partner, boosting efficiency and innovation in both traditional and new energy areas globally.

What services does Mammoth Energy Services (TUSK) provide, beyond oil and gas?

Mammoth Energy Services, Inc. (NASDAQ:TUSK) mainly operates in the United States and focuses on four specific areas: Well Completion Services, Infrastructure Services, Natural Sand Proppant Services, and Drilling Services. Their Well Completion Services are a core offering, handling things like pressure pumping, hydraulic fracturing, and water transfer, all to help with oil and natural gas production. A big way they diversify is through their Infrastructure Services, where they do engineering, design, construction, and repairs for electric transmission lines, substations, and distribution networks – including really important storm repair and restoration work. The Natural Sand Proppant Services segment involves mining, processing, and selling sand used in hydraulic fracturing, along with all the logistics. Lastly, their Drilling Services segment offers contract land and directional drilling. Mammoth Energy Services’ varied approach, serving both independent oil and gas producers and various utility clients, shows its important, though more concentrated, role in both getting energy out of the ground and keeping vital infrastructure running.

Which company is the stronger investment: Baker Hughes (BKR) or Mammoth Energy Services (TUSK)?

Looking at the numbers across many different factors, Baker Hughes (NASDAQ:BKR) clearly outperforms Mammoth Energy Services (NASDAQ:TUSK), confirming its position as the stronger business. BKR consistently leads in revenue, earnings, and robust profitability metrics like net margins, ROE, and ROA. Its lower stock volatility, strong analyst endorsements, and high institutional ownership all point to stability and investor confidence. Add to that a consistent track record of sustainable dividend growth, and Baker Hughes presents a financially solid and strategically diverse investment.

While TUSK does offer an enticing dividend yield and lower valuation multiples, these positives are currently overshadowed by its unprofitability, negative earnings, higher risk, and a less favorable outlook from analysts. For investors who prioritize stability, proven financial strength, and expert approval in the energy sector investment landscape, Baker Hughes stands out as the more compelling choice.