California Resources vs Range Resources
Add, change or remove companies; up to four.
KIRAβs take AI analyst
I put California Resources and Range Resources side by side, using each oneβs latest annual report. Here is what stands out:
- California Resources is the larger business, with $3.7B of revenue in fiscal 2025 against $3.1B for Range Resources.
- Range Resources grew revenue faster (28.9%, against 14.7%).
- Range Resources turned more of its sales into free cash flow (18.9% FCF margin, against 14.8%).
- Range Resources earned a higher return on the capital invested in it (13.7%, against 9.5%).
Who comes out ahead
Of the 9 measures where higher (or lower) is clearly better, how many each company leads.
California Resources
CRC
0/9
Range Resources
RRC
9/9
Revenue growth5-year growthNet marginFCF marginReturn on capitalReturn on equityPiotroski F-scoreNet debt / EBITDAShare count change
Side by side
Best in the row
| Latest fiscal year | CRC FY25 | RRC FY25 |
|---|---|---|
| Size | ||
| Market cap | $4.9B | $12.7B |
| Revenue | $3.7B | $3.1B |
| Free cash flow | $543M | $590M |
| Net income | $363M | $658M |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth | 14.7% | 28.9% |
| 5-year growth | 6.9% | 9.6% |
| Share count change | 7.4% | β1.2% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | β | β |
| Operating margin | 16.3% | β |
| Net margin | 9.9% | 21.1% |
| FCF margin | 14.8% | 18.9% |
| Return on capital | 9.5% | 13.7% |
| Return on equity | 10.1% | 15.9% |
| Balance sheet | ||
| Net debt | $1.2B | $1.2B |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 1.0x | 0.9x |
| Dividends and buybacks | $513M | $85.7M |
| Valuation & quality | ||
| P/E | β | 14.8x |
| Piotroski F-score | 4 | 8 |
Ten years
Revenue
Operating margin
Free cash flow
Return on capital
Each company's latest fiscal year; fiscal years end in different months. The best value in each row is highlighted where higher (or lower) is clearly better. Not investment advice.