NFG vs ATO

For growth investors, National Fuel Gas Company (NFG) is the stronger pick with 17.

1% revenue growth year-over-year, versus 12. 9% for Atmos Energy Corporation (ATO). National Fuel Gas Company (NFG) offers the better valuation at 14. 1x trailing P/E (10. 3x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate National Fuel Gas Company (NFG) a "Buy" — based on 18 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, National Fuel Gas Company (NFG) is the cheapest at 14.

1x versus Atmos Energy Corporation at 24. 4x. On forward P/E, National Fuel Gas Company is actually cheaper at 10. 3x.

Over the past 5 years, Atmos Energy Corporation (ATO) delivered a total return of +91.

7%, compared to +71. 4% for National Fuel Gas Company (NFG). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: ATO returned +179. 6% versus NFG's +82. 4%. 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), National Fuel Gas Company (NFG) is the lower-risk stock at -0.

08β versus Atmos Energy Corporation's -0. 00β — meaning ATO is approximately -96% more volatile than NFG relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Atmos Energy Corporation (ATO) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 69% versus 92% for National Fuel Gas Company — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.

By revenue growth (latest reported year), National Fuel Gas Company (NFG) is pulling ahead at 17.

1% versus 12. 9% for Atmos Energy Corporation (ATO). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: National Fuel Gas Company grew EPS 576. 2% year-over-year, compared to 9. 2% for Atmos Energy Corporation. Over a 3-year CAGR, ATO leads at 3. 8% 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.

Atmos Energy Corporation (ATO) is the more profitable company, earning 25.

5% net margin versus 22. 8% for National Fuel Gas Company — meaning it keeps 25. 5% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: NFG leads at 35. 7% versus 33. 2% for ATO. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — NFG leads at 66. 1%, 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, National Fuel Gas Company (NFG) trades at 10.

3x forward P/E versus 21. 9x for Atmos Energy Corporation — 11. 6x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for NFG: 25. 9% to $101. 00.

All stocks in this comparison pay dividends.

National Fuel Gas Company (NFG) offers the highest yield at 2. 6%, versus 1. 9% for Atmos Energy Corporation (ATO).

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

08), 2. 6% yield). Both have compounded well over 10 years (NFG: +82. 4%, ATO: +179. 6%), 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 (NFG (Energy) and ATO (Utilities)), which means they face different economic cycles, regulatory environments, and macro sensitivities — making direct comparison nuanced.

In terms of investment character: NFG is a small-cap high-growth stock; ATO is a mid-cap quality compounder stock. 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.