COMPARE · Data as of August 21, 2026
EFXT vs TDW
Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. EFXT scored 60.9, TDW scored 55.8 — EFXT leads.
Compare another set
Different reporting periods. TDW's fundamentals are as of June 2026, but EFXT'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.
EFXT
Enerflex Ltd.
60.9
$20.34 · $2.5B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
5.1
EFXT 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 growthEFXT+6.5%
- 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)
EFXT
stronger →← stronger
TDW
67
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
68
50
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
43
67
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
60
EFXT is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
EFXT
TDW
$326mC
FCF
$271mC
+6.5%C+
Rev
-1.0%D+
0.51B
D/E
0.45B
46.2xC
P/E
19.3xC+
1.17B+
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
EFXT
TDW
43% below
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
53% below
~0%/yr
Growth the price implies10-yr FCF · lower = less priced in
~-3%/yr
+37%
1-yr DCF upside
+60%
+77%
5-yr DCF upside
+112%
+150%
10-yr DCF upside
+228%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
EFXT
Why this score
- Raising its dividend
- Cyclical growth
TDW
No notable signals flagged.
The companies
EFXTEnerflex Ltd.
Why now
Oil & Gas Equipment & Services · market cap $2.5b. Down 30% from 52-week high of $29.15 — deep drawdown territory.
Moat
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
Down 30% from the 52-week high — the market is pricing in something the screen can't see; verify the bear case before sizing up. Beta 2.08 implies above-market volatility — position-size to the drawdowns this name will produce in a market correction, not to its bull-case return. Trailing P/E 46x sits well above the S&P median (~20x) — multiple compression is a real risk if revenue growth decelerates.
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 EFXT and TDW diverge
On the headline score the gap is 5.1 points in favor of EFXT. The widest single difference is Growth, where EFXT leads by 7.3 points.
- GrowthEFXT 50.0 · TDW 42.7EFXT +7.3
- ValueEFXT 67.3 · TDW 60.3EFXT +7.0
- QualityEFXT 67.1 · TDW 67.6level
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.