Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. GLNG scored 35.2, INSW scored 65.2 — INSW leads.
Compare another set
Different reporting periods. INSW's fundamentals are as of June 2026, but GLNG's are as of December 2025 — a 6-month gap. Growth, margin and valuation figures below therefore describe different windows and aren't strictly like-for-like.
GLNG
Golar LNG Limited
Oil & Gas Midstream · Quality-Growth
35.2
$47.92 · $4.9B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
30.0
INSW leads
INSW
International Seaways, Inc.
Oil & Gas Midstream · Quality-Growth
65.2
$119.82 · $5.9B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestINSW7.7x
Fastest growthINSW+57.4%
Strongest balance sheetINSW0.29
Highest qualityINSW94 / 100
Largest discount to fair valueINSW-35%
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)
GLNG
stronger →← stronger
INSW
53
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
94
50
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
50
16
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
59
INSW is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
GLNG
INSW
$254mC
FCF
$484mC
+51.1%A
Rev
+57.4%A
1.22C
D/E
0.29A-
32.8xC
P/E
7.7xA-
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
GLNG
INSW
17% above
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
35% below
~10%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~-1%/yr
-20%
1-yr DCF upside
+34%
-14%
5-yr DCF upside
+54%
-7%
10-yr DCF upside
+89%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
GLNG
Why this score
Buying back stock
Cyclical growth
INSW
Why this score
Raising its dividend
Cyclical growth
The companies
GLNGGolar LNG Limited
Oil & Gas Midstream · $47.92 · beta 0.12
Why now
Oil & Gas Midstream · market cap $4.9b. 17% off the 52-week high of $57.79. Revenue growing +51% — in hypergrowth territory. 8 sell-side analysts rate this a Strong Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $66.31 (implying +38% upside).
Moat
Net margin 17% beats the market median by a meaningful margin — the company is keeping more of every revenue dollar than the average S&P constituent. Free cash flow runs well ahead of reported net income.
Risk
Trailing P/E 33x sits well above the S&P median (~20x) — multiple compression is a real risk if revenue growth decelerates. P/S 12.4x embeds aggressive forward growth — disappointing top-line guidance would compress the multiple hard. ROE 3% is below the long-run sustainable threshold of ~10% — capital efficiency would need to improve for the equity base to compound at the market rate.
INSWInternational Seaways, Inc.
Oil & Gas Midstream · $119.82 · beta -0.10
Why now
Oil & Gas Midstream · market cap $5.9b. Trading near 52-week high of $122.75 — momentum setup, limited technical margin of safety. Revenue growing +57% — in hypergrowth territory. 6 sell-side analysts rate this a Strong Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $119.83 (implying +0% upside).
Moat
Net margin 62% is exceptional — pricing-power territory rare outside premium software, branded staples, and specialty pharma. ROE 34% — top-decile capital efficiency. Either pricing leverage, low capital intensity, or aggressive buybacks; the durability story depends on which.
Risk
Trading within 2% of the 52-week high — limited technical margin of safety; a momentum reversal would test conviction. Production-cost sensitivity — top-quartile cost producers generate cash through the cycle while marginal producers burn it; watch the cost-per-unit trend, not just headline revenue.
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 GLNG and INSW diverge
On the headline score the gap is 30.0 points in favor of INSW. The widest single difference is Value, where INSW leads by 42.6 points.
ValueGLNG 16.5 · INSW 59.1INSW +42.6
QualityGLNG 53.2 · INSW 93.6INSW +40.4
GrowthGLNG 50.0 · INSW 50.0level
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 INSW or GLNG the better stock?
INSW scores higher: INSW 65.2, GLNG 35.2 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 INSW and GLNG differ most?
The widest gap is value, where INSW leads by 43 points on the 0–100 pillar scale. INSW also leads quality, while growth is effectively level between them.
How are INSW and GLNG 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.