Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. DHT scored 56.4, PAGP scored 58.5 — PAGP leads.
Compare another set
DHT
DHT Holdings, Inc.
Oil & Gas Midstream · Quality-Growth
56.4
$24.64 · $4.0B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
2.1
PAGP leads
PAGP
Plains GP Holdings, L.P.
Oil & Gas Midstream · Quality-Growth
58.5
$26.62 · $6.2B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestDHT8.4x
Fastest growthPAGP+12.2%
Strongest balance sheetDHT0.33
Highest qualityDHT75 / 100
Largest discount to fair valuePAGP-91%
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
PAGP
75
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
70
44
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
50
55
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
57
PAGP is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
DHT
PAGP
$36mC-
FCF
$2.4bB
-12.8%D
Rev
+12.2%B+
0.33B+
D/E
0.56B
8.4xA-
P/E
60.5xC
1.19B+
PEG
0.67A-
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
PAGP
820% above
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
91% below
~58%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
decline
-88%
1-yr DCF upside
+888%
-89%
5-yr DCF upside
+1006%
-91%
10-yr DCF upside
+1211%
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
PAGP
Why this score
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.
PAGPPlains GP Holdings, L.P.
Oil & Gas Midstream · $26.62 · beta 0.52
Why now
Oil & Gas Midstream · market cap $6.2b. 7% off the 52-week high of $28.70. Revenue growing +12%, comfortably above the S&P median. PEG 0.67 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 13 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $26.38 (implying -1% upside).
Moat
Free cash flow runs well ahead of reported net income.
Risk
Trailing P/E 60.5x prices in sustained high growth — any quarter that disappoints triggers sharp re-rating. Dividend payout 363% of earnings on a 6.3% yield — distribution coverage is thin; one earnings stumble could force a dividend cut. Net margin 1.1% is thin — operating leverage cuts both ways; input-cost inflation or pricing pressure hits the bottom line first.
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 PAGP diverge
On the headline score the gap is 2.1 points in favor of PAGP. They get there differently, though — each leads on a different pillar, so the better pick depends on which you weight.
GrowthDHT 43.5 · PAGP 50.0PAGP +6.5
QualityDHT 75.4 · PAGP 70.0DHT +5.4
ValueDHT 54.7 · PAGP 57.3level
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 PAGP or DHT the better stock?
PAGP scores higher: PAGP 58.5, 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 PAGP and DHT differ most?
The widest gap is growth, where PAGP leads by 7 points on the 0–100 pillar scale. Neither name sweeps: they trade the lead across the three pillars, so the comparison is a trade-off rather than one being better on every measure.
How are PAGP 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.