COMPARE · Data as of August 27, 2026
PBA vs TRGP
Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. PBA scored 45.6, TRGP scored 52.6 — TRGP leads.
Compare another set
Different reporting periods. TRGP's fundamentals are as of June 2026, but PBA'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.
PBA
Pembina Pipeline Corporation
45.6
$51.29 · $29.8B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
7.0
TRGP leads
TRGP
Targa Resources Corp.
52.6
$294.03 · $63.0B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
- CheapestPBA27.4x
- Fastest growthPBA+5.3%
- Strongest balance sheetPBA0.82
- Highest qualityTRGP77 / 100
Side by side · every name on one set of axes
The model, pillar by pillar (0–100 each)
PBA
stronger →← stronger
TRGP
68
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
77
50
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
41
32
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
46
TRGP is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
PBA
TRGP
$1.4bC+
FCF
$741mC+
+5.3%C+
Rev
-2.0%D+
0.82C+
D/E
5.16D
27.4xC+
P/E
27.4xC
2.74C
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
PBA
TRGP
12% above
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
328% above
~5%/yr
Growth the price implies10-yr FCF · lower = less priced in
~41%/yr
-9%
1-yr DCF upside
-77%
-10%
5-yr DCF upside
-77%
-12%
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
PBA
Why this score
- Cyclical growth
- Foreign reporter (CAD)
TRGP
Why this score
- Raising its dividend
- Durable high returns
The companies
PBAPembina Pipeline Corporation
Why now
Oil & Gas Midstream · market cap $29.8b. Trading near 52-week high of $51.56 — momentum setup, limited technical margin of safety.
Moat
Net margin 22% sits well above the S&P median (~11%) — suggests structural pricing advantage or cost discipline competitors can't quickly close. ROE 10% meets the long-run market sustainable threshold — solid but not differentiated; the durability comes from elsewhere. FCF converts 129% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash, a sign that working capital and capex are well-disciplined.
Risk
Trading within 1% of the 52-week high — limited technical margin of safety; a momentum reversal would test conviction. Dividend payout 107% of earnings on a 4.0% yield — distribution coverage is thin; one earnings stumble could force a dividend cut. Jurisdictional + permitting risk — mining and extraction operations concentrate exposure to political stability, royalty regimes, and environmental review timelines that can stall production for years.
TRGPTarga Resources Corp.
Why now
Oil & Gas Midstream · market cap $63.0b. 5% off the 52-week high of $307.94. 21 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $306.86 (implying +4% 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. $63.0b 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. 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 PBA and TRGP diverge
On the headline score the gap is 7.0 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.
- ValuePBA 32.3 · TRGP 45.7TRGP +13.4
- QualityPBA 68.4 · TRGP 77.4TRGP +9.0
- GrowthPBA 50.0 · TRGP 41.1PBA +8.9
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.