vs
Side-by-side financial comparison of Oneok (OKE) and UNITIL CORP (UTL), based on the latest 10-Q / 10-K filings. Click either name above to swap in a different company.
Oneok is the larger business by last-quarter revenue ($9.1B vs $161.5M, roughly 56.1× UNITIL CORP). UNITIL CORP runs the higher net margin — 10.8% vs 11.8%, a 1.0% gap on every dollar of revenue. On growth, Oneok posted the faster year-over-year revenue change (29.5% vs 26.7%). Oneok produced more free cash flow last quarter ($576.0M vs $-36.3M). Over the past eight quarters, Oneok's revenue compounded faster (37.7% CAGR vs -4.9%).
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.
Unitil Corporation is an interstate electricity and natural gas utility company that provides services for New Hampshire, Massachusetts and Maine. Its earliest predecessor company, the Portland Gas Light Company, was founded in Maine in 1849. The current company was set up in 1984 and is based in New Hampshire. With a market cap of 686.51M, it provides electric services to about 102,400 customers and natural gas to over 75,900 customers. The service territory of Unitil includes business distr...
OKE vs UTL — Head-to-Head
Income Statement — Q4 2025 vs Q4 2025
| Metric | | |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue | $9.1B | $161.5M |
| Net Profit | $977.0M | $19.0M |
| Gross Margin | 29.4% | — |
| Operating Margin | 16.9% | 21.5% |
| Net Margin | 10.8% | 11.8% |
| Revenue YoY | 29.5% | 26.7% |
| Net Profit YoY | 5.9% | 21.8% |
| EPS (diluted) | $1.55 | $1.05 |
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 | $9.1B | $161.5M | ||
| Q3 25 | $8.6B | $101.1M | ||
| Q2 25 | $7.9B | $102.6M | ||
| Q1 25 | $8.0B | $170.8M | ||
| Q4 24 | $7.0B | $127.5M | ||
| Q3 24 | $5.0B | $92.9M | ||
| Q2 24 | $4.9B | $95.7M | ||
| Q1 24 | $4.8B | $178.7M |
| Q4 25 | $977.0M | $19.0M | ||
| Q3 25 | $939.0M | $-300.0K | ||
| Q2 25 | $841.0M | $4.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $636.0M | $27.5M | ||
| Q4 24 | $923.0M | $15.6M | ||
| Q3 24 | $693.0M | $0 | ||
| Q2 24 | $780.0M | $4.3M | ||
| Q1 24 | $639.0M | $27.2M |
| Q4 25 | 29.4% | — | ||
| Q3 25 | 30.9% | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 32.0% | — | ||
| Q1 25 | 29.7% | — | ||
| Q4 24 | 35.8% | — | ||
| Q3 24 | 39.7% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 40.9% | — | ||
| Q1 24 | 39.4% | — |
| Q4 25 | 16.9% | 21.5% | ||
| Q3 25 | 18.0% | 6.9% | ||
| Q2 25 | 18.1% | 13.0% | ||
| Q1 25 | 15.2% | 27.0% | ||
| Q4 24 | 22.4% | 22.1% | ||
| Q3 24 | 22.5% | 6.2% | ||
| Q2 24 | 25.1% | 13.0% | ||
| Q1 24 | 22.3% | 24.7% |
| Q4 25 | 10.8% | 11.8% | ||
| Q3 25 | 10.9% | -0.3% | ||
| Q2 25 | 10.7% | 3.9% | ||
| Q1 25 | 7.9% | 16.1% | ||
| Q4 24 | 13.2% | 12.2% | ||
| Q3 24 | 13.8% | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 15.9% | 4.5% | ||
| Q1 24 | 13.4% | 15.2% |
| Q4 25 | $1.55 | $1.05 | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.49 | $-0.02 | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.34 | $0.25 | ||
| Q1 25 | $1.04 | $1.69 | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.57 | $0.97 | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.18 | $0.00 | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.33 | $0.27 | ||
| Q1 24 | $1.09 | $1.69 |
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 | $78.0M | $15.6M |
| Total DebtLower is stronger | — | $670.5M |
| Stockholders' EquityBook value | $22.5B | $609.6M |
| Total Assets | $66.6B | $2.1B |
| Debt / EquityLower = less leverage | — | 1.10× |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $78.0M | $15.6M | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.2B | $14.6M | ||
| Q2 25 | $97.0M | $8.5M | ||
| Q1 25 | $141.0M | $10.2M | ||
| Q4 24 | $733.0M | $6.3M | ||
| Q3 24 | $579.0M | $6.3M | ||
| Q2 24 | $36.0M | $2.8M | ||
| Q1 24 | $65.0M | $6.3M |
| Q4 25 | — | $670.5M | ||
| Q3 25 | $33.7B | $670.5M | ||
| Q2 25 | $31.3B | $640.7M | ||
| Q1 25 | $31.8B | $642.1M | ||
| Q4 24 | $32.1B | $643.3M | ||
| Q3 24 | $28.1B | $643.3M | ||
| Q2 24 | $21.7B | $511.3M | ||
| Q1 24 | $21.7B | $512.8M |
| Q4 25 | $22.5B | $609.6M | ||
| Q3 25 | $22.1B | $597.2M | ||
| Q2 25 | $21.8B | $532.8M | ||
| Q1 25 | $21.4B | $534.1M | ||
| Q4 24 | $17.0B | $512.5M | ||
| Q3 24 | $16.9B | $502.4M | ||
| Q2 24 | $16.7B | $508.8M | ||
| Q1 24 | $16.4B | $510.8M |
| Q4 25 | $66.6B | $2.1B | ||
| Q3 25 | $66.6B | $1.9B | ||
| Q2 25 | $64.5B | $1.9B | ||
| Q1 25 | $64.3B | $1.9B | ||
| Q4 24 | $64.1B | $1.8B | ||
| Q3 24 | $51.0B | $1.7B | ||
| Q2 24 | $44.5B | $1.7B | ||
| Q1 24 | $44.4B | $1.7B |
| Q4 25 | — | 1.10× | ||
| Q3 25 | 1.53× | 1.12× | ||
| Q2 25 | 1.43× | 1.20× | ||
| Q1 25 | 1.49× | 1.20× | ||
| Q4 24 | 1.88× | 1.26× | ||
| Q3 24 | 1.66× | 1.28× | ||
| Q2 24 | 1.30× | 1.00× | ||
| Q1 24 | 1.32× | 1.00× |
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 | $1.5B | $21.4M |
| Free Cash FlowOCF − Capex | $576.0M | $-36.3M |
| FCF MarginFCF / Revenue | 6.4% | -22.5% |
| Capex IntensityCapex / Revenue; lower = less reinvestment burden | 10.7% | 35.7% |
| Cash ConversionOCF / Net Profit; >1× = earnings back up with cash | 1.58× | 1.13× |
| TTM Free Cash FlowTrailing 4 quarters | $2.4B | $-53.8M |
8-quarter trend — quarters aligned by calendar period so offset fiscal years match up.
| Q4 25 | $1.5B | $21.4M | ||
| Q3 25 | $1.6B | $15.6M | ||
| Q2 25 | $1.5B | $42.2M | ||
| Q1 25 | $904.0M | $52.1M | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.6B | $23.3M | ||
| Q3 24 | $1.3B | $26.1M | ||
| Q2 24 | $1.4B | $49.9M | ||
| Q1 24 | $596.0M | $26.6M |
| Q4 25 | $576.0M | $-36.3M | ||
| Q3 25 | $820.0M | $-39.0M | ||
| Q2 25 | $776.0M | $2.0M | ||
| Q1 25 | $275.0M | $19.5M | ||
| Q4 24 | $1.0B | $-32.3M | ||
| Q3 24 | $783.0M | $-31.3M | ||
| Q2 24 | $951.0M | $13.2M | ||
| Q1 24 | $84.0M | $6.4M |
| Q4 25 | 6.4% | -22.5% | ||
| Q3 25 | 9.5% | -38.6% | ||
| Q2 25 | 9.8% | 1.9% | ||
| Q1 25 | 3.4% | 11.4% | ||
| Q4 24 | 15.0% | -25.3% | ||
| Q3 24 | 15.6% | -33.7% | ||
| Q2 24 | 19.4% | 13.8% | ||
| Q1 24 | 1.8% | 3.6% |
| Q4 25 | 10.7% | 35.7% | ||
| Q3 25 | 9.3% | 54.0% | ||
| Q2 25 | 9.5% | 39.2% | ||
| Q1 25 | 7.8% | 19.1% | ||
| Q4 24 | 8.0% | 43.6% | ||
| Q3 24 | 9.3% | 61.8% | ||
| Q2 24 | 9.8% | 38.3% | ||
| Q1 24 | 10.7% | 11.3% |
| Q4 25 | 1.58× | 1.13× | ||
| Q3 25 | 1.73× | — | ||
| Q2 25 | 1.81× | 10.55× | ||
| Q1 25 | 1.42× | 1.89× | ||
| Q4 24 | 1.75× | 1.49× | ||
| Q3 24 | 1.81× | — | ||
| Q2 24 | 1.83× | 11.60× | ||
| Q1 24 | 0.93× | 0.98× |
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
OKE
| Natural Gas Liquids | $4.0B | 44% |
| Natural Gas Gathering And Processing | $1.8B | 20% |
| Services | $1.2B | 14% |
| Liquids Commodity | $979.0M | 11% |
| Wholly Owned Interstate Natural Gas Pipelines | $527.0M | 6% |
| Exchange Services And Natural Gas Gathering And Processing Revenue | $365.0M | 4% |
| Transportationand Storage Revenue | $108.0M | 1% |
| Other | $12.0M | 0% |
UTL
Segment breakdown not available.
