Oil & Gas Exploration & Production
Build Your Comparison
Side-by-side financial analysisStock Comparison
VET vs XOM vs SLB vs HAL vs BKR vs KO
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Oil & Gas Integrated
Oil & Gas Equipment & Services
Oil & Gas Equipment & Services
Oil & Gas Equipment & Services
Beverages - Non-Alcoholic
VET vs XOM vs SLB vs HAL vs BKR vs KO — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Oil & Gas Exploration & Production | Oil & Gas Integrated | Oil & Gas Equipment & Services | Oil & Gas Equipment & Services | Oil & Gas Equipment & Services | Beverages - Non-Alcoholic |
| Market Cap | $1.71B | $623.01B | $84.33B | $33.07B | $62.62B | $355.61B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $1.81B | $323.90B | $35.71B | $22.17B | $27.89B | $49.28B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $-814M | $28.84B | $3.35B | $1.54B | $3.12B | $13.70B |
| Gross Margin | 35.9% | 21.7% | 18.2% | 15.3% | 23.6% | 61.7% |
| Operating Margin | 20.2% | 10.5% | 15.3% | 11.3% | 25.3% | 29.3% |
| Forward P/E | 11.2x | 13.4x | 21.7x | 16.8x | 26.4x | 25.3x |
| Total Debt | $1.30B | $43.54B | $12.31B | $8.13B | $7.14B | $45.49B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $19M | $10.68B | $3.04B | $2.21B | $3.71B | $10.27B |
VET vs XOM vs SLB vs HAL vs BKR vs KO — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | Jun 20 | Jun 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vermilion Energy In… (VET) | 100 | 250.0 | +150.0% |
| Exxon Mobil Corpora… (XOM) | 100 | 328.7 | +228.7% |
| SLB N.V. (SLB) | 100 | 305.5 | +205.5% |
| Halliburton Company (HAL) | 100 | 305.1 | +205.1% |
| Baker Hughes Company (BKR) | 100 | 410.3 | +310.3% |
| The Coca-Cola Compa… (KO) | 100 | 184.9 | +84.9% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: VET vs XOM vs SLB vs HAL vs BKR vs KO
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
VET is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if value and dividends is your priority.
- Lower P/E (11.2x vs 25.3x)
- 4.1% yield, 3-year raise streak, vs KO's 2.5%
XOM lags the leaders in this set but could rank higher in a more targeted comparison.
SLB is the clearest fit if your priority is income & stability.
- Dividend streak 4 yrs, beta 0.82, yield 1.9%
HAL ranks third and is worth considering specifically for sleep-well-at-night and defensive.
- Lower volatility, beta 0.37, Low D/E 77.4%, current ratio 2.04x
- Beta 0.37, yield 1.7%, current ratio 2.04x
- Beta 0.37 vs BKR's 0.83
- +83.3% vs KO's +17.2%
BKR is the clearest fit if your priority is long-term compounding.
- 177.2% 10Y total return vs XOM's 101.3%
KO carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for growth exposure.
- Rev growth 1.9%, EPS growth 23.6%, 3Y rev CAGR 3.7%
- 1.9% revenue growth vs VET's -15.0%
- 27.8% margin vs VET's -44.9%
- 13.1% ROA vs VET's -13.8%, ROIC 15.8% vs 3.5%
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 1.9% revenue growth vs VET's -15.0% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (11.2x vs 25.3x) | |
| Quality / Margins | 27.8% margin vs VET's -44.9% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.37 vs BKR's 0.83 | |
| Dividends | 4.1% yield, 3-year raise streak, vs KO's 2.5% | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +83.3% vs KO's +17.2% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 13.1% ROA vs VET's -13.8%, ROIC 15.8% vs 3.5% |
VET vs XOM vs SLB vs HAL vs BKR vs KO — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
Segment breakdown not available.
VET vs XOM vs SLB vs HAL vs BKR vs KO — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 6 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
KO leads in 2 of 6 categories
VET leads 1 • BKR leads 1 • XOM leads 0 • SLB leads 0 • HAL leads 0 • 2 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
KO leads this category, winning 5 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
XOM is the larger business by revenue, generating $323.9B annually — 178.6x VET's $1.8B. KO is the more profitable business, keeping 27.8% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to VET's -44.9%. On growth, KO holds the edge at +12.1% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $1.8B | $323.9B | $35.7B | $22.2B | $27.9B | $49.3B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $1.2B | $59.9B | $7.4B | $3.4B | $4.5B | $15.5B |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | -$814M | $28.8B | $3.4B | $1.5B | $3.1B | $13.7B |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | $301M | $23.6B | $4.8B | $1.7B | $2.6B | $12.6B |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +35.9% | +21.7% | +18.2% | +15.3% | +23.6% | +61.7% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | +20.2% | +10.5% | +15.3% | +11.3% | +25.3% | +29.3% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | -44.9% | +8.9% | +9.4% | +6.9% | +11.2% | +27.8% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | +16.6% | +7.3% | +13.4% | +7.6% | +9.4% | +25.5% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -16.4% | -1.3% | +5.0% | -0.3% | +2.5% | +12.1% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -10.9% | -11.0% | -31.2% | +129.2% | +132.5% | +18.2% |
Valuation Metrics
VET leads this category, winning 6 of 6 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 21.9x trailing earnings, XOM trades at a 19% valuation discount to KO's 27.2x P/E. On an enterprise value basis, VET's 3.9x EV/EBITDA is more attractive than KO's 26.4x.
| Metric | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $1.7B | $623.0B | $84.3B | $33.1B | $62.6B | $355.6B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $2.6B | $655.9B | $93.6B | $39.0B | $66.0B | $390.8B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | -3.68x | 21.94x | 23.91x | 26.40x | 24.28x | 27.18x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | 11.20x | 13.41x | 21.69x | 16.80x | 26.45x | 25.27x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | — | — | — | — | 2.43x |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 3.92x | 10.94x | 12.71x | 11.48x | 13.92x | 26.39x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 1.35x | 1.92x | 2.36x | 1.49x | 2.26x | 7.42x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 1.08x | 2.37x | 3.06x | 3.17x | 3.30x | 10.40x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | 7.32x | 26.39x | 17.59x | 19.78x | 24.68x | 67.15x |
Profitability & Efficiency
KO leads this category, winning 5 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
KO delivers a 41.1% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $41 in annual profit, vs $-34 for VET. XOM carries lower financial leverage with a 0.16x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to KO's 1.33x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), KO scores 7/9 vs XOM's 3/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | -33.7% | +10.7% | +13.9% | +14.6% | +16.1% | +41.1% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | -13.8% | +6.4% | +6.5% | +6.1% | +7.3% | +13.1% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | +3.5% | +8.6% | +12.1% | +10.2% | +12.7% | +15.8% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | +3.3% | +8.9% | +14.3% | +11.6% | +13.6% | +17.3% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.59x | 0.16x | 0.45x | 0.77x | 0.38x | 1.33x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $1.3B | $32.9B | $9.3B | $5.9B | $3.4B | $35.2B |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $19M | $10.7B | $3.0B | $2.2B | $3.7B | $10.3B |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $1.3B | $43.5B | $12.3B | $8.1B | $7.1B | $45.5B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | 2.53x | 69.44x | 9.40x | 9.19x | 9.68x | 10.70x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
BKR leads this category, winning 4 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in BKR five years ago would be worth $27,175 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $14,136 for VET. Over the past 12 months, HAL leads with a +83.3% total return vs KO's +17.2%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors BKR at 30.2% vs VET's 1.3% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | +31.7% | +21.5% | +41.2% | +34.9% | +34.9% | +20.3% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | +45.6% | +37.7% | +60.9% | +83.3% | +65.8% | +17.2% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +4.0% | +49.2% | +26.6% | +31.2% | +120.7% | +47.0% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +41.4% | +167.3% | +78.9% | +80.1% | +171.7% | +65.6% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -39.7% | +101.3% | -11.1% | +2.6% | +177.2% | +121.1% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | +1.3% | +14.3% | +8.2% | +9.5% | +30.2% | +13.7% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — XOM and KO each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
XOM is the less volatile stock with a -0.37 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than BKR's 0.83 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. KO currently trades 98.3% from its 52-week high vs VET's 75.2% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | -0.18x | -0.37x | 0.82x | 0.37x | 0.83x | -0.20x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $14.82 | $176.41 | $58.82 | $43.59 | $70.41 | $84.04 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $7.00 | $105.53 | $31.64 | $20.09 | $37.38 | $65.35 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +75.2% | +83.3% | +95.5% | +90.8% | +89.7% | +98.3% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 40.9 | 42.4 | 51.4 | 47.4 | 47.1 | 60.6 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 1.3M | 13.9M | 12.1M | 10.5M | 7.3M | 12.7M |
Analyst Outlook
Evenly matched — VET and KO each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: VET as "Hold", XOM as "Hold", SLB as "Buy", HAL as "Buy", BKR as "Buy", KO as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 15.9% upside for BKR (target: $73) vs -3.7% for VET (target: $11). For income investors, VET offers the higher dividend yield at 4.10% vs BKR's 1.45%.
| Metric | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Hold | Hold | Buy | Buy | Buy | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $10.74 | $170.08 | $60.23 | $39.64 | $73.20 | $86.13 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 10 | 55 | 66 | 64 | 45 | 48 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | +4.1% | +2.7% | +1.9% | +1.7% | +1.4% | +2.5% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 3 | 43 | 4 | 0 | 4 | 56 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | $0.64 | $4.00 | $1.08 | $0.69 | $0.92 | $2.04 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | +1.5% | +3.3% | +2.9% | +3.0% | +0.6% | +0.2% |
KO leads in 2 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow, Profitability & Efficiency). VET leads in 1 (Valuation Metrics). 2 tied.
VET vs XOM vs SLB vs HAL vs BKR vs KO: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is VET or XOM or SLB or HAL or BKR or KO a better buy right now?
For growth investors, The Coca-Cola Company (KO) is the stronger pick with 1.
9% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -15. 0% for Vermilion Energy Inc. (VET). Exxon Mobil Corporation (XOM) offers the better valuation at 21. 9x trailing P/E (13. 4x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate SLB N. V. (SLB) a "Buy" — based on 66 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.
02Which has the better valuation — VET or XOM or SLB or HAL or BKR or KO?
On trailing P/E, Exxon Mobil Corporation (XOM) is the cheapest at 21.
9x versus The Coca-Cola Company at 27. 2x. On forward P/E, Vermilion Energy Inc. is actually cheaper at 11. 2x — notably different from the trailing picture, reflecting expected earnings growth.
03Which is the better long-term investment — VET or XOM or SLB or HAL or BKR or KO?
Over the past 5 years, Baker Hughes Company (BKR) delivered a total return of +171.
7%, compared to +41. 4% for Vermilion Energy Inc. (VET). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: BKR returned +177. 2% versus VET's -39. 7%. Past returns do not guarantee future results, and the stock with the higher historical return may already have its best growth priced in.
04Which is safer — VET or XOM or SLB or HAL or BKR or KO?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Exxon Mobil Corporation (XOM) is the lower-risk stock at -0.
37β versus Baker Hughes Company's 0. 83β — meaning BKR is approximately -323% more volatile than XOM relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Exxon Mobil Corporation (XOM) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 16% versus 133% for The Coca-Cola Company — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — VET or XOM or SLB or HAL or BKR or KO?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), The Coca-Cola Company (KO) is pulling ahead at 1.
9% versus -15. 0% for Vermilion Energy Inc. (VET). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: The Coca-Cola Company grew EPS 23. 6% year-over-year, compared to -1313. 3% for Vermilion Energy Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, BKR leads at 9. 4% 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.
06Which has better profit margins — VET or XOM or SLB or HAL or BKR or KO?
The Coca-Cola Company (KO) is the more profitable company, earning 27.
3% net margin versus -37. 0% for Vermilion Energy Inc. — meaning it keeps 27. 3% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: KO leads at 28. 7% versus 9. 5% for VET. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — KO leads at 61. 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.
07Is VET or XOM or SLB or HAL or BKR or KO more undervalued right now?
On forward earnings alone, Vermilion Energy Inc.
(VET) trades at 11. 2x forward P/E versus 26. 4x for Baker Hughes Company — 15. 2x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for BKR: 15. 9% to $73. 20.
08Which pays a better dividend — VET or XOM or SLB or HAL or BKR or KO?
All stocks in this comparison pay dividends.
Vermilion Energy Inc. (VET) offers the highest yield at 4. 1%, versus 1. 4% for Baker Hughes Company (BKR).
09Is VET or XOM or SLB or HAL or BKR or KO better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, Exxon Mobil Corporation (XOM) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β -0.
37), 2. 7% yield, +101. 3% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (XOM: +101. 3%, SLB: -11. 1%), 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.
10What are the main differences between VET and XOM and SLB and HAL and BKR and KO?
These companies operate in different sectors (VET (Energy) and XOM (Energy) and SLB (Energy) and HAL (Energy) and BKR (Energy) and KO (Consumer Defensive)), which means they face different economic cycles, regulatory environments, and macro sensitivities — making direct comparison nuanced.
In terms of investment character: VET is a small-cap income-oriented stock; XOM is a large-cap quality compounder stock; SLB is a mid-cap quality compounder stock; HAL is a mid-cap quality compounder stock; BKR is a mid-cap quality compounder stock; KO is a large-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.
You Might Also Compare
Based on how these companies actually compete and overlap — not just which sector they're filed under.