Compare Thomson Reuters Corp (TRI) vs United States Natural Gas Fund (UNG) Price & Performance
Price performance (Past 24H)
Key statistics
Key statistics
Thomson Reuters Corp vs United States Natural Gas Fund — how do they compare? Thomson Reuters Corp trades at $97 (market cap $42.75B), while United States Natural Gas Fund trades at $10.04. The key difference: Thomson Reuters Corp pays a 2.65% dividend while United States Natural Gas Fund pays none, and Thomson Reuters Corp is trading nearer its 52-week high, United States Natural Gas Fund nearer its low. Which is the better fit depends on your goals.
| TRI | UNG | |
|---|---|---|
Market Cap | $42.75B | — |
Sector | Industrials | Commodities - Energy |
52-Week High | $173.48 | $16.90 |
52-Week Low | $76.55 | $9.63 |
Enterprise Value | $45.37B | — |
Dividend Yield | 2.65% | — |
Aura AI Summary
Signals from Pluang's Aura AI — not financial advice
Aura AI Summary
Signals from Pluang's Aura AI — not financial advice
Thomson Reuters (TRI) trades at $98.81, down 6.5% in 24 hours, with a bearish technical signal and support near $97. The company reported Q2 2026 EPS of $0.99, beating estimates, and raised full-year revenue guidance. Revenue grew 9% organically, with strong performance in Legal, Corporates, and Tax segments. Net income margin is 21.22%, and the P/E ratio is 26.03. Recent news highlights AI expansion with the launch of the proprietary Thomson-1 LLM and a cybersecurity incident affecting its case management system.
Outlook is mixed: robust recurring revenue and AI adoption support growth, but the stock faces near-term pressure from the price drop and cybersecurity risks. Analysts maintain a buy consensus with a $113 price target, implying 14% upside. Key risks include execution on AI initiatives, competitive pressures, and potential fallout from the security breach.
UNG trades at $10.46, down 0.95% with a bearish technical signal from moving averages. The ETF faces headwinds from high natural gas production and storage levels, though weather-driven demand provides some support. Recent EIA forecasts project record natural gas supply and demand through 2027, creating a mixed fundamental backdrop for this futures-based commodity ETF.
The outlook remains challenged by oversupply concerns, though long-term demand growth from LNG exports and data center power needs offers potential upside. Key risks include commodity price volatility and the structural limitations of futures-based ETFs versus equity-based alternatives like FCG.
Returns comparison
Trailing returns across standard periods
Returns comparison
Trailing returns across standard periods
About Thomson Reuters Corp
Thomson Reuters is the result of the $17.6 billion megamerger of Canada's Thomson and the United Kingdom's Reuters Group in 2008 and the 2018 carve-out of its finance and risk business, Refinitiv, in which it holds a 45% stake. In 2019, the company agreed to exchange its 45% stake in Refinitiv for a 15% stake in LSE, which closed in early 2021. Since the divestiture, the company is more concentrated on selling its flagship legal data and software, Westlaw, and its tax accounting software, Onesource. Reuters sees roughly 80% of revenue and 70% of expenses attributed to the United States, while the remainder (largely through the global print and Reuters News segments) is distributed across Latin America, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, and Asia-Pacific.
Read more on TRI →About United States Natural Gas Fund
UNG is a commodity ETF that tracks the daily price movements of natural gas futures. It primarily invests in front-month contracts at the Henry Hub, making it a highly volatile tool for short-term trading rather than long-term holding due to contango and roll costs.
Read more on UNG →
