Cheniere Energy Partners LP (CQP)vsEnergy Transfer LP (ET)
CQP
Cheniere Energy Partners LP
$67.74
-1.54%
ENERGY · Cap: $33.27B
ET
Energy Transfer LP
$21.55
-0.83%
ENERGY · Cap: $74.20B
Smart Verdict
WallStSmart Research — data-driven comparison
Energy Transfer LP generates 834% more annual revenue ($107.38B vs $11.50B). CQP leads profitability with a 27.3% profit margin vs 4.9%. ET appears more attractively valued with a PEG of 0.67. ET earns a higher WallStSmart Score of 72/100 (B).
CQP
Buy64
out of 100
Grade: C+
ET
Strong Buy72
out of 100
Grade: B
Intrinsic Value Comparison
Multi-model valuation · Graham Formula
Margin of Safety
+70.3%
Fair Value
$194.46
Current Price
$67.74
$126.72 discount
Margin of Safety
+86.3%
Fair Value
$157.28
Current Price
$21.55
$135.73 discount
Key Strengths & Concerns
Side-by-side fundamental analysis
Key Strengths
Every $100 of equity generates 85 in profit
Strong operational efficiency at 51.9%
Earnings expanding 136.1% YoY
Keeps 27 of every $100 in revenue as profit
Attractively priced relative to earnings
Revenue surging 78.4% year-over-year
Earnings expanding 85.3% YoY
Large-cap with strong market position
Growing faster than its price suggests
Attractively priced relative to earnings
Reasonable price relative to book value
Areas to Watch
Trading at 8.9x book value
Expensive relative to growth rate
Elevated debt levels
4.9% margin — thin
Elevated debt levels
Weak financial health signals
Comparative Analysis Report
WallStSmart ResearchBull Case : CQP
The strongest argument for CQP centers on Return on Equity, Operating Margin, EPS Growth. Profitability is solid with margins at 27.3% and operating margin at 51.9%.
Bull Case : ET
The strongest argument for ET centers on Revenue Growth, EPS Growth, Market Cap. Revenue growth of 78.4% demonstrates continued momentum. PEG of 0.67 suggests the stock is reasonably priced for its growth.
Bear Case : CQP
The primary concerns for CQP are Price/Book, PEG Ratio, Debt/Equity. Debt-to-equity of 3.91 is elevated, increasing financial risk.
Bear Case : ET
The primary concerns for ET are Profit Margin, Debt/Equity, Piotroski F-Score. Debt-to-equity of 1.99 is elevated, increasing financial risk. Thin 4.9% margins leave little buffer for downturns.
Key Dynamics to Monitor
CQP profiles as a mature stock while ET is a hypergrowth play — different risk/reward profiles.
ET carries more volatility with a beta of 0.57 — expect wider price swings.
ET is growing revenue faster at 78.4% — sustainability is the question.
ET generates stronger free cash flow (2.7B), providing more financial flexibility.
Bottom Line
ET scores higher overall (72/100 vs 64/100) and 78.4% revenue growth. CQP offers better value entry with a 70.3% margin of safety. Both earn "Strong Buy" and "Buy" ratings respectively — the choice depends on your investment horizon and risk tolerance.
This analysis is generated from publicly available financial data. Not financial advice.
Cheniere Energy Partners LP
ENERGY · OIL & GAS MIDSTREAM · USA
Cheniere Energy Partners, LP, owns and operates regasification facilities at the Sabine Pass liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal located in Cameron Parish, Louisiana, on the Sabine-Neches waterway. The company is headquartered in Houston, Texas.
Energy Transfer LP
ENERGY · OIL & GAS MIDSTREAM · USA
Energy Transfer LP offers energy related services. The company is headquartered in Dallas, Texas.
Compare with Other OIL & GAS MIDSTREAM Stocks
Want to dig deeper into these stocks?