Oil & Gas Equipment & Services · market cap $2.8b. 12% off the 52-week high of $22.55. 7 sell-side analysts rate this a Strong Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $24.57 (implying +24% upside).
Moat
Higher-variance name — the moat signals on the quantitative card are modest, so the durability case rests on execution (turning current growth into durable earnings power) or an un-monetized asset (IP / network effects / first-mover position) rather than an entrenched competitive position.
Risk
Free cash flow is negative (-$82m) — capital raises or debt issuance likely required; dilution / leverage risk. Trailing P/E 70.6x prices in sustained high growth — any quarter that disappoints triggers sharp re-rating. Net margin 2.2% is thin — operating leverage cuts both ways; input-cost inflation or pricing pressure hits the bottom line first.
Oil & Gas Equipment & Services · market cap $4.4b. 14% off the 52-week high of $74.07. Revenue growing +22%, comfortably above the S&P median. 9 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $70.22 (implying +11% upside).
Moat
ROE 13% meets the long-run market sustainable threshold — solid but not differentiated; the durability comes from elsewhere. FCF converts 198% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash.
Risk
Trailing P/E 53.3x prices in sustained high growth — any quarter that disappoints triggers sharp re-rating. Beta 1.43 implies above-market volatility — position-size to the drawdowns this name will produce in a market correction, not to its bull-case return. Hedge-book exposure — many commodity producers hedge forward production; if the hedge book is concentrated at prices well below spot, the upside the market expects is already locked away.
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 WTTR and WHD diverge
On the headline score the gap is 33.6 points in favor of WHD. The widest single difference is Quality, where WHD leads by 47.4 points.
QualityWTTR 36.9 · WHD 84.3WHD +47.4
ValueWTTR 12.5 · WHD 49.2WHD +36.7
GrowthWTTR 36.2 · WHD 50.0WHD +13.8
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 WHD or WTTR the better stock?
WHD scores higher: WHD 59.2, WTTR 25.6 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 WHD and WTTR differ most?
The widest gap is quality, where WHD leads by 47 points on the 0–100 pillar scale. WHD leads all three pillars, so the gap is broad rather than a single-measure difference.
How are WHD and WTTR 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.