olivLaw · European equity research
GAZTRANSPORT ET TECHNIGAZ GTT.PA
France · Euronext Paris · ISIN FR0011726835 · Vertical: Listed companies from France
GTT designs membrane containment systems for storing liquefied natural gas on ships and floating installations, and offers engineering, training, maintenance and digital solutions to the maritime industry. With the expected growth in LNG carrier orders and interest in LNG as a marine fuel, its position in the LNG value chain is relevant, with more than 450 LNG carrier orders estimated for 2026-2035.
At the close of 05 Nov 2026, GAZTRANSPORT ET TECHNIGAZ (GTT.PA) stock was 181.80 EUR (−1.20% on the day), with market capitalisation 6.7 bn EUR, P/E 16.4 on diluted EPS of 11.10 EUR over the last 12 months, dividend yield 4.32%, beta 0.33, 52-week range 154.90–227.00 EUR.
Data as of · AI analysis dated · Source: ESEF annual reports and closing prices, computed by olivLaw.
Price history
Loading chart…
Technical reading
- RSI (14)
- 33.6
- weak (30–45)
- Bollinger (20, 2)
- 173.90 – 223.34
- in the lower half of the band · %B 0.16 · band width 24.9%
- SMA 50 / 200
- 209.39 / 199.38
- mixed trend
- MACD (12, 26, 9)
- -7.85 / -6.40
- MACD below signal
Indicators describe past prices; on their own they do not predict direction. On our history the RSI ≤ 40 filter added no return (see the signals methodology).
Performance
| Company | EURO STOXX 50 | vs EURO STOXX 50 | Vertical median | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 month | −14.7% | −0.6% | −14.1 pp | — |
| 3 months | −7.6% | −4.2% | −3.5 pp | — |
| 6 months | −12.5% | +4.3% | −16.8 pp | — |
| Year to date | +16.1% | +7.5% | +8.6 pp | — |
| 1 year | −0.8% | +9.9% | −10.7 pp | −6.8% |
| 3 years | +51.1% | +49.8% | +1.3 pp | −15.9% |
| 5 years | +173.0% | +42.8% | +130.1 pp | — |
Price returns, dividends excluded.
Quarterly results
ESEF annual reports carry no quarters: the results are annual (below).
E/P over time
E/P = trailing-12-month diluted EPS / price at quarter end. E/P is the inverse of P/E and stays defined when earnings are negative.
Today's P/E sits at the 100 percentile of its own 2-quarter history (min 13.7, median 13.9, max 14.1; quarters with earnings only).
Fiscal years
| Fiscal year | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue | 427.7 m | 641.4 m | 803.0 m |
| Revenue YoY | unavailable | +50.0% | +25.2% |
| Net income | 201.4 m | 347.8 m | 413.6 m |
| Net income YoY | unavailable | +72.7% | +18.9% |
| Diluted EPS | unavailable | 9.40 | 11.10 |
| Diluted EPS YoY | unavailable | unavailable | +18.1% |
| net % | 47.1% | 54.2% | 51.5% |
| Free cash flow | unavailable | unavailable | unavailable |
Balance sheet & financial health
Fiscal year 2025 · 31 Dec 2025
- Cash
- 346.7 m EUR
- Financial debt
- unavailable EUR
- Net debt
- unavailable EUR
- Equity
- 589.8 m EUR
- Total assets
- 1.0 bn EUR
- Debt / equity
- unavailable
- Current ratio
- 2.00x
- ROE
- 78.7%
- ROA
- 44.5%
- FCF margin
- unavailable
Financial statements (source on every figure)
Revenue and net income (EUR)
Margins
Income statement · EUR
| Line | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | Source (latest year) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue | 427.7 m | 641.4 m | 803.0 m | esef· 29 Apr 2026verified |
| Operating income | 232.4 m | 395.3 m | 472.6 m | esef· 29 Apr 2026verified |
| Pre-tax income | 236.2 m | 406.8 m | 480.4 m | esef· 29 Apr 2026verified |
| Income tax | 34.9 m | 59.0 m | 66.9 m | esef· 29 Apr 2026verified |
| Net income | 201.4 m | 347.8 m | 413.6 m | esef· 29 Apr 2026verified |
| Diluted EPS | — | 9.40 | 11.10 | esef· 29 Apr 2026verified |
| Weighted average diluted shares | 37.1 m | 37.1 m | — | esef· 29 Apr 2025verified |
| Dividend per share | — | 4.36 | 7.86 | esef· 29 Apr 2026derived |
Balance sheet · EUR
| Line | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | Source (latest year) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cash | 267.5 m | 343.3 m | 346.7 m | esef· 29 Apr 2026verified |
| Inventories | — | 29.8 m | 25.1 m | esef· 29 Apr 2026verified |
| Current assets | 518.5 m | 678.2 m | 675.2 m | esef· 29 Apr 2026verified |
| Goodwill | 15.4 m | 19.0 m | 104.8 m | esef· 29 Apr 2026verified |
| Intangibles (excl. goodwill) | 23.1 m | 37.3 m | 168.4 m | esef· 29 Apr 2026verified |
| Total assets | 616.4 m | 814.8 m | 1.0 bn | esef· 29 Apr 2026verified |
| Accounts payable | 32.4 m | 44.6 m | — | esef· 29 Apr 2025verified |
| Current liabilities | 268.1 m | 332.1 m | 337.6 m | esef· 29 Apr 2026verified |
| Equity | 336.3 m | 461.5 m | 589.8 m | esef· 29 Apr 2026verified |
| Shares outstanding at year end | — | 37.0 m | 36.9 m | esef· 29 Apr 2026derived |
Cash flow · EUR
| Line | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | Source (latest year) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Operating cash flow | 216.2 m | 361.5 m | 423.2 m | esef· 29 Apr 2026verified |
| Investing cash flow | -44.0 m | -68.5 m | -244.8 m | esef· 29 Apr 2026verified |
| Financing cash flow | -115.9 m | -217.3 m | -174.3 m | esef· 29 Apr 2026verified |
| Dividends paid | 125.6 m | 228.9 m | 290.2 m | esef· 29 Apr 2026verified |
Computed indicators
Growth
Profitability
Returns
Balance sheet
Liquidity
Cash
Efficiency
Market and valuation
1 indicators that do not apply to the sector.
Valuation
olivLaw classification
- indicators available: 4 of at least 6
- score weight coverage: 27.1% of at least 60%
A scoring methodology on indicators and valuation, not investment advice.
Closing price
05 Nov 2026Source: olivLaw, closing series
Market cap: 6.7 bn EUR
Key indicators
Coverage and freshness
Score by group
27% · Insufficient data
Estimated value range
The combined range = the median of the valid methods' low, central and high values; it is not a probability interval and does not cover every result. Envelope of all methods: 106.87 – 330.79 EUR.
Valuation assumptions are editorial choices, not measured; beta is not measured.
Method ranges (EUR per share)
— — Mid · ▏ Price
Valuation methods
- DCF (discounted cash flow)unavailable · input data missing
- Peers: EV/EBITDAunavailable · net debt missing: EV cannot be bridged to equity (missing debt is not zero)
- Peers: P/E123.12 – 330.79 (Mid 190.15)20 companies used · median multiple 17.1x · quartiles 11.1x – 29.8x74SW.PA, ABEO.PA, AC.PA, ADP.PA, AF.PA, AI.PA, ALBON.PA, ALCIS.PA, ALCLA.PA, ALFER.PA, ALHEX.PA, ALO.PA, ALPWG.PA, ALSOG.PA, ANTIN.PA, ARAMI.PA, ATE.PA, AUB.PA, AURE.PA, BB.PA
- Dividend discount (DDM)106.87 – 145.74 (Mid 123.32)
Assumptions (illustrative, editorial)
- Risk-free rate
- 3.0%
- Equity risk premium
- 5.5%
- Beta (default)
- 1.00
- Cost of equity
- 8.5%
- Terminal growth
- 2.0%
Factor scorecard
Insufficient data
Minimum-evidence gate: indicators available: 4 of at least 6; score weight coverage: 27.1% of at least 60%
| Factor | Value | Score | Weight used |
|---|---|---|---|
| ROIC · Quality | unavailable | unavailable | — |
| Net margin · Quality | 51.5% | 97 (vs peers) | 23% |
| FCF conversion · Quality | unavailable | unavailable | — |
| Revenue CAGR 3Y · Growth | unavailable | unavailable | — |
| EPS CAGR 3Y · Growth | unavailable | unavailable | — |
| Net debt / EBITDA · Balance sheet | unavailable | unavailable | — |
| Interest coverage · Balance sheet | unavailable | unavailable | — |
| Current ratio · Balance sheet | 2.0x | 100 (on a fixed band) | 15% |
| P/E (TTM) · Valuation | 16.4x | 61 (vs peers) | 38% |
| EV/EBITDA · Valuation | unavailable | unavailable | — |
| FCF yield · Valuation | unavailable | unavailable | — |
| Shareholder yield (distributions) · Returns | 4.3% | 62 (on a fixed band) | 23% |
| Payout ratio (FCF) · Returns | unavailable | unavailable | — |
Factors without a value were dropped; the remaining weights were renormalised.
Score groups
- Balance sheet· partial100/100 · 1/3 factors with a value
- Growth· partialunavailable · 0/2 factors with a value
- Quality· partial97/100 · 1/3 factors with a value
- Returns· partial62/100 · 1/2 factors with a value
- Valuation· partial61/100 · 1/3 factors with a value
A «partial» group is computed from under half of its weight or from one factor: it is not a full assessment of the group.
Memo
GAZTRANSPORT ET TECHNIGAZ (GTT.PA). Latest full fiscal year: 2025; data up to 2025-12-31.
Figures computed from the financial statements: revenue 803.0 m EUR in 2025; YoY growth 25.2%; net margin 51.5%; ROE 78.8%.
The estimated value range is 115.00–238.26 EUR per share (median of 2 methods, agreement: high); assumptions are illustrative. Against the central value of 156.73 EUR, the price of 181.80 EUR leaves a potential of -13.8% (value / price − 1) and a margin of safety of -16.0% (1 − price / value). The range is the median of the methods' low, central and high values, not a probability interval.
Insufficient data for a verdict (indicators available: 4 of at least 6; score weight coverage: 27.1% of at least 60%).
Text generated deterministically from the figures shown; no language model. Not investment advice.
What supports the thesis
- Net margin: 51.5%
- Current ratio: 2.0x
What contradicts it
No signal among the computed factors. That is not an absence of risk: factors without data were not assessed, and business risks (margins, inventory, demand) are in the source-based analysis.
Not assessed (insufficient data or a ratio without meaning): ROIC, FCF conversion, Revenue CAGR 3Y, EPS CAGR 3Y, Net debt / EBITDA, Interest coverage, EV/EBITDA, FCF yield, Payout ratio (FCF).
Versus the vertical median
Listed companies from France · same country · compared with 39 companies
Multiples and returns vs the median
Price rebased to 100 (monthly, 5 years)
Companies in the vertical
| Market cap | P/E | ROE | Net margin | Revenue YoY | 1A / 3A | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AI.PAL'air Liquide Societe Anonyme Pour L'etude Et L'exploitation Des Procedes Georges Claude | 109.3 bn | 33.2 | 12.9% | 12.2% | −2.0% | +26% / +32% |
| AC.PAAccor | 13.8 bn | 30.7 | 9.6% | 8.0% | +0.6% | +6% / +56% |
| ADP.PAAeroports De Paris | 11.7 bn | 34.1 | 7.8% | 5.6% | +12.1% | −7% / +4% |
| AKE.PAArkema | 7.1 bn | 115.4 | 0.9% | 0.7% | −5.0% | +12% / −37% |
| GTT.PAGaztransport Et Technigaz | 6.7 bn | 16.4 | 78.8% | 51.5% | +25.2% | +6% / +47% |
| ALO.PAAlstom | 5.8 bn | 18.3 | 3.1% | 1.7% | +3.7% | −51% / −4% |
| AF.PAAir France - Klm | 4.3 bn | 13.6 | — | 1.0% | +4.8% | +20% / +9% |
| ATE.PAAlten | 3.1 bn | 29.5 | 4.8% | 2.6% | −1.1% | +33% / −29% |
| BB.PASociete Bic | 2.7 bn | 31.3 | 5.0% | 4.1% | −4.8% | +32% / +5% |
| ANTIN.PAAntin Infrastructure Partners | 1.4 bn | 13.0 | 21.9% | 36.6% | −8.1% | −24% / −35% |
| 74SW.PA74software | 792.7 m | 20.9 | 8.9% | 8.5% | +44.8% | −13% / +41% |
| AUB.PAAubay | 667.4 m | 17.8 | 13.6% | 6.3% | +11.3% | +3% / +45% |
| ASY.PAAssystem | 507.1 m | 69.9 | 2.5% | 1.1% | +7.4% | −19% / −18% |
| ATO.PAAtos Se | 483.0 m | — | -23,400.0% | -17.5% | −16.5% | −45% / −94% |
| ARAMI.PAAramis Group | 298.8 m | 15.0 | 10.0% | 0.8% | +6.3% | −33% / −16% |
| ARVEN.PAArverne Group | 246.1 m | — | -14.0% | -115.3% | +27.0% | +20% / −35% |
| BGO.PACompagnie Chargeurs Invest | 189.4 m | — | -8.6% | -5.7% | −2.9% | unavailable / unavailable |
| ALCIS.PACatering International & Services | 145.0 m | 28.4 | 9.3% | 1.9% | +5.8% | +39% / +107% |
| ALCGM.PACegedim | 144.6 m | — | -2.6% | -1.2% | +10.9% | −26% / −49% |
| ATEME.PAAteme | 144.0 m | 151.3 | 2.8% | 1.0% | +2.2% | +82% / +77% |
| ALHEX.PAHexaom | 144.0 m | 6.7 | 9.9% | 2.2% | +13.1% | −32% / +7% |
| ALBON.PACompagnie Lebon | 111.7 m | 16.5 | 4.2% | 8.8% | −17.9% | +6% / +8% |
| ALHYF.PALhyfe | 75.8 m | — | -33.4% | -570.5% | +287.2% | unavailable / unavailable |
| ALFER.PASergeferrari Group | 61.5 m | 11.5 | 5.1% | 1.5% | +7.4% | −33% / −27% |
| ABEO.PAAbeo | 60.8 m | 7.3 | 6.9% | 3.0% | +12.6% | −13% / −54% |
1- and 3-year price returns: for GTT.PA from daily closes (the same as the performance table), for the other companies from month-end closes.
olivLaw engine forecast
The world engine ran after the company's latest material disclosure. Probabilities are of TOUCHING a level within the horizon (not closing there) and sit next to the random walk (p_rw), the no-information benchmark.
The engine has no published run for this company yet.
Valuation scenarios (editable assumptions)
Illustrative scenarios
Illustrative: not forecasts and without probabilities. Each case is one coherent set of assumptions, computed on today's figures.
Estimated price (EUR)
| Estimated price | Bear | Base | Bull |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 years | 119.87 Total return -30% · Per year -30% | 210.95 Total return 21% · Per year 21% | 316.43 Total return 80% · Per year 80% |
| 3 years | 142.19 Total return -9% · Per year -3% | 278.99 Total return 71% · Per year 20% | 455.66 Total return 173% · Per year 40% |
| 5 years | 168.65 Total return 15% · Per year 3% | 368.96 Total return 137% · Per year 19% | 656.15 Total return 306% · Per year 32% |
- Exit P/E± 69.75
- Net margin± 48.82
- Annual revenue growth± 36.41
- Annual dilution± 4.10
AI analysis
AI-generatedAI-generated analysis (Claude) from cited public sources; it may contain errors. Not investment advice. As of 27 Oct 2026 · Model: claude-haiku-5-5.
In brief
GTT designs membrane containment systems for storing liquefied natural gas on ships and floating installations, and offers engineering, training, maintenance and digital solutions to the maritime industry. With the expected growth in LNG carrier orders and interest in LNG as a marine fuel, its position in the LNG value chain is relevant, with more than 450 LNG carrier orders estimated for 2026-2035 1.
SWOT
Strengths
- Technological recognition of membrane tanks and a large installed base of ships fitted with its technology.
- Broad range of services covering the lifecycle of LNG projects, from engineering to maintenance.
- Experience in tightness testing through Cryovision, with results on a large number of tanks.
Weaknesses
- Dependence on shipbuilding orders and on shipowners' investment cycles.
- The digital segment is still smaller and faces a fragmented market.
- Part of revenue depends on a relatively small number of large projects, which can create volatility.
Opportunities
- Expansion of LNG as marine fuel on new and converted ships.
- Development of Recycool, GTT Cubiq and ammonia-compatible solutions.
- Acquisitions in digital services that could widen the client base.
Threats
- Competition from alternative technologies for FSRUs and FLNGs.
- Regulatory or energy preference changes that could reduce interest in LNG.
- Risk of acquisition integration and margin pressure in the digital segment.
Risks
- Cyclicality of ordersmedium
Revenue depends on the timing of ship and LNG project orders, which can fluctuate with energy markets.
- Technological competitionmedium
SPB and Moss technologies could win contracts if their costs or performance become more attractive.
- Regulatory changeshigh
Changes to environmental rules could accelerate or slow adoption of LNG and other fuels.
- Acquisition integrationmedium
Integrating VPS and Danelec could bring operational difficulties or delays in synergies.
- Customer concentrationlow
A relatively small number of large shipyards and shipowners can strongly influence order volumes.
Investment thesis
What would need to be true (bull case)
- If environmental rules continue to favour LNG, demand for tanks and related services could grow steadily.
- Recognition of membrane technology and expansion of digital services could strengthen the long-term position.
- Ship conversions and FLNGs could generate additional orders if onshore construction costs stay high.
What would break the thesis
- If shipowners choose other fuels or technologies, GTT tank orders could be smaller than estimated.
- Competition from SPB and Moss could limit growth in the FSRU and FLNG segments.
- If integration of digital acquisitions is delayed, expected synergies could be weaker than planned.
What to watch
- Actual pace of LNG carrier orders compared with the group's estimate2026
- Completion of the Danelec acquisition and integration with Ascenz Marorka2026
- Evolution of FSRU and FLNG orders in the order booknext annual report
- Commercial adoption of Recycool and GTT Cubiq2027
Products, market & competition
AI-generatedAI-generated analysis (Claude) from cited public sources; it may contain errors. Not investment advice. As of 27 Oct 2026 · Model: claude-haiku-5-5.
The business
GTT designs and licenses membrane tank systems for LNG transport and storage, which it supplies to shipyards and EPC contractors. The group and its subsidiaries also offer services across the LNG project lifecycle, from consulting and engineering studies to training, operational support and maintenance, including through Cryovision, which specialises in tightness testing. Marine and digital solutions are also present, extended by the acquisition of Danelec, a voyage data recorder maker 1.
Segments
LNG containment and tanks
This is the core business: membrane tanks for LNG carriers, LNG-fuelled ships, FSRUs and FLNGs. According to the annual report, the group considers membrane technology more efficient and reliable above a certain volume, and GTT Cubiq and Recycool are recent product innovations 1.
Services and training
It includes consulting, engineering studies, training through GTT Training and the G-Sim simulator, operational support and the HEARS emergency service, as well as maintenance through Cryovision and the network of approved shipyards 1.
Marine and digital solutions
Recent acquisitions (VPS in 2024 and Danelec announced in 2025) extend activity in vessel performance, compliance with CII, EU ETS and FuelEU, and voyage data recorders, in a market described as emerging and fragmented 1.
Market context
The group estimates it could receive significantly more than 450 LNG carrier orders between 2026 and 2035, supported by rising LNG demand and fleet renewal. The FSRU market could, in the short term, be made up more of conversions of older LNG carriers than of newbuilds. Rising onshore construction costs make FLNG more attractive 1.
New rules for LNG carriers may increase the number of ships candidates for conversion, and demand for LNG as marine fuel is described as emerging. The digital services market is considered promising but still fragmented, with many players covering only parts of the field 1.
Trends
- LNG growth as marine fueltailwind
Adoption of LNG for ship propulsion opens new demand for tanks and services, but depends on the pace of regulation and shipowner choices 1.
- Conversions of older LNG carriersmixed
Conversions of LNG carriers into FSRUs or other roles could replace newbuilds in the short term, which could change the revenue mix 1.
- Stricter environmental rulesmixed
CII, EU ETS and FuelEU increase the need for digital compliance solutions, but could also accelerate the shift to other fuels such as ammonia, for which the group has adapted the membrane 1.
- High onshore construction coststailwind
Rising costs on land make FLNG and FSRU more attractive, which could support orders for GTT technology 1.
Competitive position
In LNG tanks, GTT competes with type C tanks and other tank solutions, while for FSRUs and FLNGs it competes with SPB and Moss Maritime, which the group considers more costly. In digital services, the market is fragmented, with many players covering only partial areas of expertise 1.
- SPB
Competing technology for FSRUs and FLNGs, described in the annual report as more costly than GTT membrane for FSRUs.
- Moss Maritime
Competing technology for FSRUs, considered by the group more costly than GTT membrane.
- Wison
Chinese shipyard that built FLNGs fitted with SPB technology, cited in the report.
- Type C tanks
Alternative storage technology, described as less efficient at filling space than membrane tanks.
News & filings
In the press
No news in our archive over the last 180 days.
Annual reports (ESEF)
- Annual report 202529 Apr 2026
- Annual report 202429 Apr 2025
Sources
- [1] Annual report, fiscal year ended 2025-12-31 (ESEF) · SEC / GAZTRANSPORT ET TECHNIGAZ · 31 Dec 2025
Figures computed by olivLaw from ESEF annual reports and closing prices; the qualitative analysis is AI-generated from cited sources. Not investment advice.