COMPARE · Data as of August 21, 2026
DTM vs TRGP
Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. DTM scored 32.0, TRGP scored 52.4 — TRGP leads.
Compare another set
DTM
DT Midstream, Inc.
32
$126.39 · $12.9B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
20.4
TRGP leads
TRGP
Targa Resources Corp.
52.4
$299.10 · $64.1B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
- CheapestDTM27.7x
- Fastest growthDTM+18.1%
- Strongest balance sheetDTM0.69
- Highest qualityTRGP77 / 100
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)
DTM
stronger →← stronger
TRGP
69
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
77
50
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
41
10
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
45
TRGP is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
DTM
TRGP
$480mC
FCF
$741mC+
+18.1%B+
Rev
-2.0%D+
0.69B
D/E
5.16D
27.7xC
P/E
28.6xC
7.33D
PEG
1.25B
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
DTM
TRGP
41% above
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
336% above
~12%/yr
Growth the price implies10-yr FCF · lower = less priced in
~42%/yr
-30%
1-yr DCF upside
-78%
-29%
5-yr DCF upside
-77%
-28%
10-yr DCF upside
-76%
These two disagree on this pair: the Value pillar ranks cheapness against sector peers, while price-vs-fair-value is an absolute read. A name can be the better value in its sector and still the dearer one on cash flows.
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
DTM
Why this score
- Raising its dividend
- Cyclical growth
TRGP
Why this score
- Raising its dividend
- Durable high returns
The companies
DTMDT Midstream, Inc.
Why now
Oil & Gas Midstream · market cap $12.9b. 17% off the 52-week high of $152.88. Revenue growing +18%, comfortably above the S&P median. 14 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $155.00 (implying +23% upside).
Moat
Net margin 36% is exceptional — pricing-power territory rare outside premium software, branded staples, and specialty pharma. FCF converts 103% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash, a sign that working capital and capex are well-disciplined.
Risk
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.
TRGPTarga Resources Corp.
Why now
Oil & Gas Midstream · market cap $64.1b. Trading near 52-week high of $307.94 — momentum setup, limited technical margin of safety. 21 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $305.24 (implying +2% upside).
Moat
Net margin 14% beats the market median by a meaningful margin — the company is keeping more of every revenue dollar than the average S&P constituent. ROE 62% — top-decile capital efficiency. Either pricing leverage, low capital intensity, or aggressive buybacks; the durability story depends on which. $64.1b market cap gives the company enough scale to absorb fixed costs that subscale competitors can't, without yet being so large that growth has to come from acquisition.
Risk
D/E 5.16 is elevated — limits strategic flexibility and raises refinancing exposure if rates stay higher for longer. Trading within 3% of the 52-week high — limited technical margin of safety; a momentum reversal would test conviction. Jurisdictional + permitting risk — mining and extraction operations concentrate exposure to political stability, royalty regimes, and environmental review timelines that can stall production for years.
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 DTM and TRGP diverge
On the headline score the gap is 20.4 points in favor of TRGP. They get there differently, though — each leads on a different pillar, so the better pick depends on which you weight.
- ValueDTM 9.5 · TRGP 45.2TRGP +35.7
- GrowthDTM 50.0 · TRGP 41.1DTM +8.9
- QualityDTM 68.8 · TRGP 77.3TRGP +8.5
Pillars run 0–100 against sector peers, so a 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.