FTI vs NOV vs SLB vs BKR

For growth investors, TechnipFMC plc (FTI) is the stronger pick with 9.

4% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -1. 6% for SLB N. V. (SLB). SLB N. V. (SLB) offers the better valuation at 22. 7x trailing P/E (20. 3x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate TechnipFMC plc (FTI) a "Buy" — based on 50 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 trailing P/E, SLB N.

V. (SLB) is the cheapest at 22. 7x versus NOV Inc. at 49. 4x. On forward P/E, SLB N. V. is actually cheaper at 20. 3x.

Over the past 5 years, TechnipFMC plc (FTI) delivered a total return of +750.

8%, compared to +19. 9% for NOV Inc. (NOV). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: FTI returned +217. 4% versus NOV's -32. 0%. 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), TechnipFMC plc (FTI) is the lower-risk stock at 0.

55β versus NOV Inc. 's 0. 96β — meaning NOV is approximately 74% more volatile than FTI relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, NOV Inc. (NOV) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 37% versus 59% for TechnipFMC plc — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.

By revenue growth (latest reported year), TechnipFMC plc (FTI) is pulling ahead at 9.

4% versus -1. 6% for SLB N. V. (SLB). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: TechnipFMC plc grew EPS 20. 4% year-over-year, compared to -75. 6% for NOV Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, FTI leads at 14. 0% 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.

TechnipFMC plc (FTI) is the more profitable company, earning 9.

7% net margin versus 1. 7% for NOV Inc. — meaning it keeps 9. 7% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: SLB leads at 15. 3% versus 6. 5% for NOV. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — BKR leads at 23. 6%, 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, SLB N.

V. (SLB) trades at 20. 3x forward P/E versus 26. 7x for Baker Hughes Company — 6. 4x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for BKR: 14. 6% to $73. 20.

All stocks in this comparison pay dividends.

NOV Inc. (NOV) offers the highest yield at 2. 6%, versus 0. 3% for TechnipFMC plc (FTI).

For long-horizon retirement investors, Baker Hughes Company (BKR) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0.

79), 1. 4% yield, +188. 0% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (BKR: +188. 0%, NOV: -32. 0%), 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.

Both stocks operate in the Energy sector, making this a peer-level intra-sector comparison — the same macro tailwinds and headwinds will affect both.

NOV, SLB, BKR pay a dividend while FTI 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.