COMPARE · Data as of August 21, 2026
LB vs TDW
Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. LB scored 35.5, TDW scored 55.8 — TDW leads.
Compare another set
LB
LandBridge Company LLC
35.5
$89.02 · $6.9B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
20.3
TDW leads
TDW
Tidewater Inc.
55.8
$95.25 · $4.7B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
- CheapestTDW19.3x
- Fastest growthLB+81.1%
- Strongest balance sheetTDW0.45
- Highest qualityTDW68 / 100
- Largest discount to fair valueTDW-53%
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)
LB
stronger →← stronger
TDW
64
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
68
50
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
43
14
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
60
TDW is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
LB
TDW
$151mC
FCF
$271mC
+81.1%A
Rev
-1.0%D+
0.64B
D/E
0.45B
79.5xD
P/E
19.3xC+
5.08D
PEG
0.18A
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
LB
TDW
136% above
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
53% below
~32%/yr
Growth the price implies10-yr FCF · lower = less priced in
~-3%/yr
-64%
1-yr DCF upside
+60%
-58%
5-yr DCF upside
+112%
-47%
10-yr DCF upside
+228%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
LB
Why this score
- Diluting shareholders
- Cyclical growth
- Short track record
TDW
No notable signals flagged.
The companies
LBLandBridge Company LLC
Why now
Oil & Gas Equipment & Services · market cap $6.9b. Trading near 52-week high of $91.69 — momentum setup, limited technical margin of safety. Revenue growing +81% — in hypergrowth territory. 7 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $83.57 (implying -6% upside).
Moat
Net margin 16% beats the market median by a meaningful margin — the company is keeping more of every revenue dollar than the average S&P constituent. ROE 12% meets the long-run market sustainable threshold — solid but not differentiated; the durability comes from elsewhere. Free cash flow runs well ahead of reported net income — non-cash charges (depreciation, intangible amortization) are holding down GAAP earnings while cash generation stays strong.
Risk
Trailing P/E 79.5x prices in sustained high growth — any quarter that disappoints triggers sharp re-rating. Trading within 3% of the 52-week high — limited technical margin of safety; a momentum reversal would test conviction. P/S 30.4x embeds aggressive forward growth — disappointing top-line guidance would compress the multiple hard.
TDWTidewater Inc.
Why now
Oil & Gas Equipment & Services · market cap $4.7b. Trading near 52-week high of $97.50 — momentum setup, limited technical margin of safety. PEG 0.18 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 7 sell-side analysts rate this a Hold with a mean 1-yr target of $90.86 (implying -5% upside).
Moat
Net margin 18% beats the market median by a meaningful margin — the company is keeping more of every revenue dollar than the average S&P constituent. ROE 18% sits above Buffett's preferred 15% threshold — the equity base is compounding at a rate the market struggles to discount accurately. FCF converts 110% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash, a sign that working capital and capex are well-disciplined.
Risk
Trading within 2% of the 52-week high — limited technical margin of safety; a momentum reversal would test conviction. Commodity exposure — earnings power tracks the price of the underlying commodity, not management execution. A 15-20% move in the commodity reprices the equity well before fundamentals catch up.
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 LB and TDW diverge
On the headline score the gap is 20.3 points in favor of TDW. They get there differently, though — each leads on a different pillar, so the better pick depends on which you weight.
- ValueLB 14.1 · TDW 60.3TDW +46.2
- GrowthLB 50.0 · TDW 42.7LB +7.3
- QualityLB 63.5 · TDW 67.6TDW +4.1
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.