TUSK vs ACDC

For growth investors, ProFrac Holding Corp.

(ACDC) is the stronger pick with -11. 4% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -76. 4% for Mammoth Energy Services, Inc. (TUSK). Mammoth Energy Services, Inc. (TUSK) offers the better valuation at 23. 5x trailing P/E, making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Mammoth Energy Services, Inc. (TUSK) a "Hold" — based on 13 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.

Over the past 5 years, Mammoth Energy Services, Inc.

(TUSK) delivered a total return of -35. 4%, compared to -63. 7% for ProFrac Holding Corp. (ACDC). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: ACDC returned -63. 7% versus TUSK's -78. 5%. 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), Mammoth Energy Services, Inc.

(TUSK) is the lower-risk stock at 0. 66β versus ProFrac Holding Corp. 's 0. 83β — meaning ACDC is approximately 25% more volatile than TUSK relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Mammoth Energy Services, Inc. (TUSK) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 1% versus 130% for ProFrac Holding Corp. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.

By revenue growth (latest reported year), ProFrac Holding Corp.

(ACDC) is pulling ahead at -11. 4% versus -76. 4% for Mammoth Energy Services, Inc. (TUSK). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Mammoth Energy Services, Inc. grew EPS 102. 3% year-over-year, compared to -66. 7% for ProFrac Holding Corp.. Over a 3-year CAGR, ACDC leads at -7. 1% 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.

ProFrac Holding Corp.

(ACDC) is the more profitable company, earning -19. 0% net margin versus -143. 9% for Mammoth Energy Services, Inc. — meaning it keeps -19. 0% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: ACDC leads at -6. 9% versus -143. 9% for TUSK. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — TUSK leads at 45. 5%, 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.

None of the stocks in this comparison currently pay a material dividend.

All are effectively zero-yield and should be held for capital appreciation rather than income.

For long-horizon retirement investors, Mammoth Energy Services, Inc.

(TUSK) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0. 66)). Both have compounded well over 10 years (TUSK: -78. 5%, ACDC: -63. 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 (TUSK (Industrials) and ACDC (Energy)), which means they face different economic cycles, regulatory environments, and macro sensitivities — making direct comparison nuanced.

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.