vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of DT Midstream, Inc. (DTM) and PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC CO /OR/ (POR), based on the latest 10-Q / 10-K filings. Click either name above to swap in a different company.
PORTLAND GENERAL ELECTRIC CO /OR/ is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($889.0M vs $317.0M, roughly 2.8× DT Midstream, Inc.). DT Midstream, Inc. runs the higher net margin — 35.0% vs 4.6%, a 30.4% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, DT Midstream, Inc. posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (27.3% vs 7.9%). DT Midstream, Inc. produced more free cash flow last quarter ($30.0M vs $-142.0M). Over the past eight quarters, DT Midstream, Inc.'s revenue compounded faster (14.9% CAGR vs -2.2%).
Oneok, Inc. ONE-oak, stylized as ONEOK, is an American oil and gas midstream operator headquartered in Tulsa, Oklahoma. It provides the oil and gas industry with gathering, processing, fractionation, transportation, and storage services. The company is part of the Fortune 500 and S&P 500. Oneok was founded as Oklahoma Natural Gas Company in 1906, but it changed its corporate name to Oneok in 1980.
Portland General Electric (PGE) is a Fortune 1000, publicly traded energy company based in Portland, Oregon, that generates, transmits and distributes electricity, serving almost two-thirds of Oregon's commercial and industrial activity. PGE is regulated by the Oregon Public Utility Commission. Founded in 1888 as the Willamette Falls Electric Company, the company has been an independent company for most of its existence, though was briefly owned by the Houston-based Enron Corporation from 199...
DTM vs POR — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q4 2025 vs Q4 2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $317.0M | $889.0M |
| Net Profit | $111.0M | $41.0M |
| Gross Margin | — | — |
| Operating Margin | 49.2% | 10.7% |
| Net Margin | 35.0% | 4.6% |
| Revenue YoY | 27.3% | 7.9% |
| Net Profit YoY | 52.1% | 7.9% |
| EPS (diluted) | $1.07 | $0.36 |
Green = leading value per metric. Periods may differ when fiscal calendars don't align — see 8-quarter trend below.
8-Quarter Revenue & Profit Trend
Side-by-side quarterly history — bar widths are scaled to the larger of the two companies so you can eyeball the size gap and growth trajectory without doing math. Quarters aligned by calendar period (report date) so offset fiscal years line up.
| Q4 25 | $317.0M | $889.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | $314.0M | $952.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $309.0M | $807.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $303.0M | $928.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $249.0M | $824.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $248.0M | $929.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $244.0M | $758.0M | ||
| Q1 24 | $240.0M | $929.0M |
| Q4 25 | $111.0M | $41.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | $115.0M | $103.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $107.0M | $62.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $108.0M | $100.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $73.0M | $38.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $88.0M | $94.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $96.0M | $72.0M | ||
| Q1 24 | $97.0M | $109.0M |
| Q4 25 | 49.2% | 10.7% | ||
| Q3 25 | 49.4% | 18.3% | ||
| Q2 25 | 50.2% | 14.6% | ||
| Q1 25 | 48.8% | 18.1% | ||
| Q4 24 | 45.4% | 10.7% | ||
| Q3 24 | 49.2% | 15.7% | ||
| Q2 24 | 53.3% | 15.3% | ||
| Q1 24 | 51.7% | 17.4% |
| Q4 25 | 35.0% | 4.6% | ||
| Q3 25 | 36.6% | 10.8% | ||
| Q2 25 | 34.6% | 7.7% | ||
| Q1 25 | 35.6% | 10.8% | ||
| Q4 24 | 29.3% | 4.6% | ||
| Q3 24 | 35.5% | 10.1% | ||
| Q2 24 | 39.3% | 9.5% | ||
| Q1 24 | 40.4% | 11.7% |
| Q4 25 | $1.07 | $0.36 | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.13 | $0.94 | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.04 | $0.56 | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.06 | $0.91 | ||
| Q4 24 | $0.73 | $0.34 | ||
| Q3 24 | $0.90 | $0.90 | ||
| Q2 24 | $0.98 | $0.69 | ||
| Q1 24 | $0.99 | $1.08 |
Balance Sheet & Financial Strength
Snapshot of each company's liquidity, leverage and book value from the latest filing — the kind of financial-strength check premium terminals charge for.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Cash + ST InvestmentsLiquidity on hand | $54.0M | — |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | $4.7B |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $4.7B | $4.1B |
| Total Assets | $10.1B | $13.2B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | 1.13× |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $54.0M | — | ||
| Q3 25 | $98.0M | — | ||
| Q2 25 | $74.0M | — | ||
| Q1 25 | $83.0M | — | ||
| Q4 24 | $68.0M | — | ||
| Q3 24 | $77.0M | — | ||
| Q2 24 | $73.0M | — | ||
| Q1 24 | $41.0M | — |
| Q4 25 | — | $4.7B | ||
| Q3 25 | — | $4.7B | ||
| Q2 25 | — | $4.7B | ||
| Q1 25 | — | $4.7B | ||
| Q4 24 | $3.4B | $4.5B | ||
| Q3 24 | — | $4.4B | ||
| Q2 24 | — | $4.4B | ||
| Q1 24 | — | $4.4B |
| Q4 25 | $4.7B | $4.1B | ||
| Q3 25 | $4.7B | $4.0B | ||
| Q2 25 | $4.7B | $3.9B | ||
| Q1 25 | $4.6B | $3.8B | ||
| Q4 24 | $4.6B | $3.8B | ||
| Q3 24 | $4.2B | $3.6B | ||
| Q2 24 | $4.2B | $3.5B | ||
| Q1 24 | $4.2B | $3.5B |
| Q4 25 | $10.1B | $13.2B | ||
| Q3 25 | $10.1B | $13.0B | ||
| Q2 25 | $10.0B | $12.7B | ||
| Q1 25 | $9.9B | $12.7B | ||
| Q4 24 | $9.9B | $12.5B | ||
| Q3 24 | $8.6B | $11.9B | ||
| Q2 24 | $9.0B | $11.6B | ||
| Q1 24 | $9.0B | $11.6B |
| Q4 25 | — | 1.13× | ||
| Q3 25 | — | 1.20× | ||
| Q2 25 | — | 1.23× | ||
| Q1 25 | — | 1.23× | ||
| Q4 24 | 0.72× | 1.20× | ||
| Q3 24 | — | 1.22× | ||
| Q2 24 | — | 1.27× | ||
| Q1 24 | — | 1.28× |
Cash Flow & Capital Efficiency
How much cash each business actually produces after reinvestment. Net income can be massaged; cash flow is harder to fake.
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Operating Cash FlowLast quarter | $161.0M | $148.0M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $30.0M | $-142.0M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | 9.5% | -16.0% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue; lower = less reinvestment burden | 41.3% | 32.6% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit; >1× = earnings back up with cash | 1.45× | 3.61× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $441.0M | $-71.0M |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $161.0M | $148.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | $274.0M | $403.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $185.0M | $336.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $247.0M | $231.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $152.0M | $170.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $205.0M | $244.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $165.0M | $189.0M | ||
| Q1 24 | $241.0M | $175.0M |
| Q4 25 | $30.0M | $-142.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | $131.0M | $100.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $104.0M | $99.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $176.0M | $-128.0M | ||
| Q4 24 | $62.0M | $-222.0M | ||
| Q3 24 | $124.0M | $-9.0M | ||
| Q2 24 | $84.0M | $-109.0M | ||
| Q1 24 | $143.0M | $-150.0M |
| Q4 25 | 9.5% | -16.0% | ||
| Q3 25 | 41.7% | 10.5% | ||
| Q2 25 | 33.7% | 12.3% | ||
| Q1 25 | 58.1% | -13.8% | ||
| Q4 24 | 24.9% | -26.9% | ||
| Q3 24 | 50.0% | -1.0% | ||
| Q2 24 | 34.4% | -14.4% | ||
| Q1 24 | 59.6% | -16.1% |
| Q4 25 | 41.3% | 32.6% | ||
| Q3 25 | 45.5% | 31.8% | ||
| Q2 25 | 26.2% | 29.4% | ||
| Q1 25 | 23.4% | 38.7% | ||
| Q4 24 | 36.1% | 47.6% | ||
| Q3 24 | 32.7% | 27.2% | ||
| Q2 24 | 33.2% | 39.3% | ||
| Q1 24 | 40.8% | 35.0% |
| Q4 25 | 1.45× | 3.61× | ||
| Q3 25 | 2.38× | 3.91× | ||
| Q2 25 | 1.73× | 5.42× | ||
| Q1 25 | 2.29× | 2.31× | ||
| Q4 24 | 2.08× | 4.47× | ||
| Q3 24 | 2.33× | 2.60× | ||
| Q2 24 | 1.72× | 2.63× | ||
| Q1 24 | 2.48× | 1.61× |
Financial Flow Comparison
Sankey diagram of revenue → gross profit → operating profit → net profit for each company. Charts shown full-width and stacked so both segment hierarchies are readable side-by-side on desktop and mobile.
Revenue Breakdown by Segment
DTM
| Pipeline Segment | $173.0M | 55% |
| Gathering Segment | $144.0M | 45% |
POR
| Other | $507.0M | 57% |
| Commercial | $231.0M | 26% |
| Industrial | $140.0M | 16% |
| Direct Accesscustomers | $11.0M | 1% |
