Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. DHT scored 56.4, HESM scored 63.3 — HESM leads.
Compare another set
DHT
DHT Holdings, Inc.
Oil & Gas Midstream · Quality-Growth
56.4
$24.64 · $4.0B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
6.9
HESM leads
HESM
Hess Midstream LP
Oil & Gas Midstream · Quality-Growth
63.3
$32.26 · $6.7B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestDHT8.4x
Fastest growthHESM+8.4%
Strongest balance sheetDHT0.33
Highest qualityHESM78 / 100
Largest discount to fair valueHESM-68%
Side by side · every name on one set of axes
Growth against the P/E multiple. Up and to the right is cheaper and faster — the quality-growth idea in one picture. Points beyond the axis are pinned to the edge and marked off-scale rather than allowed to compress everything else.
The model, pillar by pillar (0–100 each)
DHT
stronger →← stronger
HESM
75
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
78
44
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
50
55
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
65
HESM is stronger on 3 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
DHT
HESM
$36mC-
FCF
$838mC+
-12.8%D
Rev
+8.4%B
0.33B+
D/E
9.48D
8.4xA-
P/E
11.1xB+
1.19B+
PEG
2.20C
Winner per row is the stronger grade; where grades tie, the better figure breaks it. A true tie or a missing value shows no highlight.
Valuation · DCF cross-check
DHT
HESM
820% above
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
68% below
~58%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~-19%/yr
-88%
1-yr DCF upside
+197%
-89%
5-yr DCF upside
+215%
-91%
10-yr DCF upside
+244%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
DHT
Why this score
Raising its dividend
HESM
Why this score
Buying back stock
Raising its dividend
Cyclical growth
The companies
DHTDHT Holdings, Inc.
Oil & Gas Midstream · $24.64 · beta -0.06
Why now
Oil & Gas Midstream · market cap $4.0b. Trading near 52-week high of $25.07 — momentum setup, limited technical margin of safety. Revenue -13% — in contraction; any catalyst that reverses this triggers re-rating. 6 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $23.35 (implying -5% upside).
Moat
Net margin 59% is exceptional — pricing-power territory rare outside premium software, branded staples, and specialty pharma. ROE 39% — top-decile capital efficiency. Either pricing leverage, low capital intensity, or aggressive buybacks; the durability story depends on which.
Risk
Revenue contracting -13% — the operational turn is not yet visible in the top line. Trading within 2% of the 52-week high — limited technical margin of safety; a momentum reversal would test conviction. Reserve-replacement treadmill — every barrel or ounce extracted has to be replaced through exploration or acquisition; underspending on replacement reserves shows up in production declines 2-3 years out.
HESMHess Midstream LP
Oil & Gas Midstream · $32.26 · beta 0.56
Why now
Oil & Gas Midstream · market cap $6.7b. Down 22% from 52-week high of $41.44 — deep drawdown territory. 6 sell-side analysts rate this an Underperform with a mean 1-yr target of $37.50 (implying +16% upside).
Moat
Net margin 23% sits well above the S&P median (~11%) — suggests structural pricing advantage or cost discipline competitors can't quickly close. Free cash flow runs well ahead of reported net income, mostly because of depreciation and amortization ($224m) — non-cash charges that hold down reported earnings while cash generation stays strong.
Risk
D/E 9.48 is elevated — limits strategic flexibility and raises refinancing exposure if rates stay higher for longer. Dividend payout 105% of earnings on a 9.1% yield — distribution coverage is thin; one earnings stumble could force a dividend cut. Hedge-book exposure — many commodity producers hedge forward production; if the hedge book is concentrated at prices well below spot, the upside the market expects is already locked away.
Verdict — model-derived comparison
Generating verdict… typically 5–10 seconds
Not investment advice. The Bull Rankings publishes a quantitative ranking model and accompanying analysis for general informational purposes only. Nothing on this page is a recommendation to buy, sell, or hold any security; nothing is personalized to your circumstances, risk tolerance, or tax situation. Investing carries the risk of loss — invest at your own risk and consider consulting a licensed financial professional before acting on anything you read here. See terms and methodology for full disclosures.
Where DHT and HESM diverge
On the headline score the gap is 6.9 points in favor of HESM. The widest single difference is Value, where HESM leads by 9.9 points.
ValueDHT 54.7 · HESM 64.6HESM +9.9
GrowthDHT 43.5 · HESM 50.0HESM +6.5
QualityDHT 75.4 · HESM 78.4HESM +3.0
Pillars run 0–100. Value is judged against each company's own sector, so a Value score is a statement about a company relative to its own industry rather than to the other name here. A wide Value gap usually means the market already prices the difference in quality or growth — which is the trade-off this comparison comes down to.
Common questions
Is HESM or DHT the better stock?
HESM scores higher: HESM 63.3, DHT 56.4 out of 100 on the Bull Rankings quality-growth score, which blends business quality, growth and valuation into one number. A higher score means a stronger business at a more reasonable price — it is not a price target or a recommendation.
Where do HESM and DHT differ most?
The widest gap is value, where HESM leads by 10 points on the 0–100 pillar scale. HESM leads all three pillars, so the gap is broad rather than a single-measure difference.
How are HESM and DHT scored?
Each carries the same 0–100 quality-growth score used everywhere on the site, built from three pillars — quality (profitability and returns on capital), growth (revenue and earnings), and value (what you pay for them) — combined as a geometric mean, so a weak pillar cannot be papered over by a strong one.
How current is this comparison?
The whole universe is re-scored every trading day after the US market close, so the scores and fundamentals here reflect the latest published edition.