Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. INSW scored 65.2, LNG scored 58.8 — INSW leads.
Compare another set
INSW
International Seaways, Inc.
Oil & Gas Midstream · Quality-Growth
65.2
$119.82 · $5.9B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
6.4
INSW leads
LNG
Cheniere Energy, Inc.
Oil & Gas Midstream · Quality-Growth
58.8
$278.18 · $57.5B
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)
INSW
stronger →← stronger
LNG
94
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
82
50
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
50
59
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
50
INSW is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
INSW
LNG
$484mC
FCF
$2.8bB
+57.4%A
Rev
+27.2%A-
0.29A-
D/E
2.43D
7.7xA-
P/E
21.0xC+
—
PEG
9.46D
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
INSW
LNG
35% below
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
6% above
~-1%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~12%/yr
+34%
1-yr DCF upside
-19%
+54%
5-yr DCF upside
-5%
+89%
10-yr DCF upside
+19%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
INSW
Why this score
Raising its dividend
Cyclical growth
LNG
Why this score
Buying back stock
Raising its dividend
Durable high returns
Cyclical growth
The companies
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.
LNGCheniere Energy, Inc.
Oil & Gas Midstream · $278.18 · beta 0.06
Why now
Oil & Gas Midstream · market cap $57.5b. 8% off the 52-week high of $300.89. Revenue growing +27% — in hypergrowth territory. 21 sell-side analysts rate this a Strong Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $310.57 (implying +12% 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 39% — top-decile capital efficiency. Either pricing leverage, low capital intensity, or aggressive buybacks; the durability story depends on which. FCF converts 96% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash.
Risk
D/E 2.43 is elevated — limits strategic flexibility and raises refinancing exposure if rates stay higher for longer. 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 INSW and LNG diverge
On the headline score the gap is 6.4 points in favor of INSW. The widest single difference is Quality, where INSW leads by 11.8 points.
QualityINSW 93.6 · LNG 81.8INSW +11.8
ValueINSW 59.1 · LNG 49.6INSW +9.5
GrowthINSW 50.0 · LNG 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 LNG the better stock?
INSW scores higher: INSW 65.2, LNG 58.8 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 LNG differ most?
The widest gap is quality, where INSW leads by 12 points on the 0–100 pillar scale. INSW also leads value, while growth is effectively level between them.
How are INSW and LNG 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.