TechnipFMC (FTI) vs Cactus (WHD)
Head-to-head comparison of performance, valuation, growth, profitability and dividends. Prices delayed 15 minutes; data as of Oct 7, 2026.
Summary
TechnipFMC (FTI) has outperformed Cactus (WHD) over the past year, gaining 78.4% versus a gain of 73.5%. Over five years, FTI leads with a +763.0% price change compared with +50.4% for WHD. TechnipFMC is the larger company by market cap ($26.82 billion vs $4.40 billion), about 6.1 times the size.
On valuation, Cactus trades at a lower forward P/E (17.3x vs 18.9x for TechnipFMC). Cactus offers the higher dividend yield (0.89% vs 0.29%). Cactus converts more of its revenue into profit, with a net margin of 15.4% versus 9.7%.
Summary generated from market data by MetaCap's automated system. Methodology
Relative performance
Percent change in share price from the first common trading day shown; excludes dividends.
Head-to-head
| Metric | FTI | WHD |
|---|---|---|
| Share price | $68.40 | $63.10 |
| Market cap | $26.82B | $4.40B |
| 1-day change | -2.13% | -1.67% |
| YTD return | +53.01% | +38.40% |
| 1-year return | +78.43% | +73.49% |
| 5-year return | +763.04% | +50.42% |
| P/E ratio (TTM) | 23.83 | 53.03 |
| Forward P/E | 18.91 | 17.28 |
| EPS (TTM) | $2.87 | $1.19 |
| Dividend yield | 0.29% | 0.89% |
| Annual dividend | $0.20 | $0.56 |
| Revenue (latest FY) | $9.93B | $1.08B |
| Revenue growth (YoY) | +9.35% | -4.49% |
| Net income (latest FY) | $963.90M | $166.01M |
| Gross margin | — | 37.02% |
| Operating margin | 14.46% | 23.21% |
| Net margin | 9.70% | 15.39% |
| 52-week high | $80.70 | $74.07 |
| 52-week low | $35.29 | $33.20 |
| Distance from 52-week high | -15.24% | -14.81% |
| Analyst consensus | buy | buy |
| Avg. price target upside | +11.04% | +11.28% |
| Average volume | 3.05M | 775.95K |
| Shares outstanding | 392.16M | 69.73M |
| Employees | 22,000 | 1,500 |
| Sector | Energy | Energy |
| Industry | Oil & Gas Equipment & Services | Oil & Gas Equipment & Services |
Highlighted cells mark the higher value for growth, returns, margins and yield, and the lower value for P/E ratios. Highlighting is a mechanical comparison, not a recommendation.
Key differences
- TechnipFMC is about 6.1 times larger than Cactus by market value ($26.82B vs $4.40B).
- Cactus trades at a higher earnings multiple (53.0x vs 23.8x trailing P/E).
- Cactus is more profitable, keeping 15.4 cents of every revenue dollar as net income versus 9.7 cents for TechnipFMC.
- TechnipFMC grew revenue faster in its latest fiscal year (+9.35% vs -4.49%).
About TechnipFMC
FTI stock →TechnipFMC plc engages in the oil and natural gas projects, technologies, systems, and services businesses in Europe, Central Asia, North America, Latin America, the Asia Pacific, Africa, the Middle East, and internationally. It operates through two segments, Subsea and Surface Technologies.
Energy · Oil & Gas Equipment & Services · 22,000 employees
About Cactus
WHD stock →Cactus, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, designs, manufactures, sells, and rents engineered pressure control and spoolable pipe technologies in the United States, Australia, Canada, the Middle East, and internationally. The company operates in two segments: Pressure Control and Spoolable Technologies.
Energy · Oil & Gas Equipment & Services · 1,500 employees
FTI vs WHD FAQ
Which is bigger, TechnipFMC or Cactus?
TechnipFMC (FTI) is larger, with a market capitalization of $26.82B compared with $4.40B for Cactus (WHD).
Which stock has performed better over the past year, FTI or WHD?
FTI returned +78.43% over the past 12 months, compared with +73.49% for WHD (price return, excluding dividends). Past performance does not predict future results.
Which has the lower P/E ratio, FTI or WHD?
FTI has the lower trailing P/E at 23.8, versus 53.0 for WHD. A lower P/E is not by itself a sign of a better investment; it can reflect slower expected growth or higher risk.
Which pays a higher dividend, TechnipFMC or Cactus?
Cactus has the higher yield at 0.89%, compared with 0.29% for TechnipFMC.
Are TechnipFMC and Cactus in the same industry?
Yes. Both are classified in the Oil & Gas Equipment & Services industry within the Energy sector.