FLR vs WFRD

For growth investors, Fluor Corporation (FLR) is the stronger pick with -5.

0% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -10. 8% for Weatherford International plc (WFRD). Weatherford International plc (WFRD) offers the better valuation at 18. 3x trailing P/E (19. 0x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Fluor Corporation (FLR) a "Buy" — based on 28 analyst ratings — the highest consensus in this comparison. The "better buy" depends entirely on your goals: growth investors should weight revenue trajectory, value investors should weight P/E and PEG, and income investors should weight dividend yield and streak.

On forward P/E, Weatherford International plc is actually cheaper at 19.

0x.

Over the past 5 years, Weatherford International plc (WFRD) delivered a total return of +881.

5%, compared to +122. 3% for Fluor Corporation (FLR). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: WFRD returned +350. 7% versus FLR's +10. 7%. Past returns do not guarantee future results, and the stock with the higher historical return may already have its best growth priced in.

By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Weatherford International plc (WFRD) is the lower-risk stock at 1.

25β versus Fluor Corporation's 1. 90β — meaning FLR is approximately 52% more volatile than WFRD relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Fluor Corporation (FLR) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 33% versus 103% for Weatherford International plc — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.

By revenue growth (latest reported year), Fluor Corporation (FLR) is pulling ahead at -5.

0% versus -10. 8% for Weatherford International plc (WFRD). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Weatherford International plc grew EPS -12. 1% year-over-year, compared to -116. 2% for Fluor Corporation. Over a 3-year CAGR, WFRD leads at 4. 3% annualised revenue growth. Higher growth typically commands a higher valuation multiple — check whether the premium P/E or P/S is justified by the growth rate using the PEG ratio.

Weatherford International plc (WFRD) is the more profitable company, earning 8.

8% net margin versus -2. 3% for Fluor Corporation — meaning it keeps 8. 8% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: WFRD leads at 15. 4% versus -2. 4% for FLR. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — WFRD leads at 21. 7%, reflecting greater pricing power or product mix advantage. Stronger margins indicate durable pricing power, lower cost of revenue, or higher mix of software/services. They are one of the clearest signs of business quality.

On forward earnings alone, Weatherford International plc (WFRD) trades at 19.

0x forward P/E versus 19. 7x for Fluor Corporation — 0. 7x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for FLR: 3. 3% to $56. 00.

In this comparison, WFRD (0.

9% yield) pays a dividend. FLR does not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.

For long-horizon retirement investors, Weatherford International plc (WFRD) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 1.

25), 0. 9% yield, +350. 7% 10Y return). Fluor Corporation (FLR) carries a higher beta of 1. 90 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (WFRD: +350. 7%, FLR: +10. 7%), confirming both are viable long-term holds — but the lower-volatility option typically results in less emotional selling during corrections. Retirement portfolios generally favour predictability over maximum returns. Consult a financial advisor before making allocation decisions.

These companies operate in different sectors (FLR (Industrials) and WFRD (Energy)), which means they face different economic cycles, regulatory environments, and macro sensitivities — making direct comparison nuanced.

WFRD pays a dividend while FLR does not, making them suitable for different income and tax situations. These fundamental differences mean investors should not choose between them on a single metric — the "better stock" depends entirely on which of these characteristics aligns with your investment strategy.