Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. LNG scored 58.8, TNK scored 57.1 — LNG leads.
Compare another set
Different reporting periods. LNG's fundamentals are as of June 2026, but TNK'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.
LNG
Cheniere Energy, Inc.
Oil & Gas Midstream · Quality-Growth
58.8
$278.18 · $57.5B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
1.7
LNG leads
TNK
Teekay Tankers Ltd.
Oil & Gas Midstream · Quality-Growth
57.1
$106.14 · $3.7B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestTNK6.3x
Fastest growthLNG+27.2%
Strongest balance sheetTNK0.02
Highest qualityLNG82 / 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)
LNG
stronger →← stronger
TNK
82
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
71
50
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
41
50
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
64
LNG is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
LNG
TNK
$2.8bB
FCF
$116mC
+27.2%A-
Rev
-22.6%F
2.43D
D/E
0.02A
21.0xC+
P/E
6.3xA
9.46D
PEG
1.10B+
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
LNG
TNK
6% above
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
163% above
~12%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~23%/yr
-19%
1-yr DCF upside
-57%
-5%
5-yr DCF upside
-62%
+19%
10-yr DCF upside
-68%
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
LNG
Why this score
Buying back stock
Raising its dividend
Durable high returns
Cyclical growth
TNK
No notable signals flagged.
The companies
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.
TNKTeekay Tankers Ltd.
Oil & Gas Midstream · $106.14 · beta -0.12
Why now
Oil & Gas Midstream · market cap $3.7b. Trading near 52-week high of $107.39 — momentum setup, limited technical margin of safety. Revenue -23% — in contraction; any catalyst that reverses this triggers re-rating. 5 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $96.80 (implying -9% upside).
Moat
Net margin 37% is exceptional — pricing-power territory rare outside premium software, branded staples, and specialty pharma. ROE 17% is above 15% — the equity base is compounding at a rate the market struggles to discount accurately.
Risk
Revenue contracting -23% — the operational turn is not yet visible in the top line. Trading within 1% 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 LNG and TNK diverge
On the headline score the gap is 1.7 points in favor of LNG. They get there differently, though — each leads on a different pillar, so the better pick depends on which you weight.
ValueLNG 49.6 · TNK 63.7TNK +14.1
QualityLNG 81.8 · TNK 70.9LNG +10.9
GrowthLNG 50.0 · TNK 41.3LNG +8.7
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 LNG or TNK the better stock?
LNG scores higher: LNG 58.8, TNK 57.1 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 LNG and TNK differ most?
The widest gap is value, where TNK leads by 14 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 LNG and TNK 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.