TotalEnergies (TTE) or Shell: who really hands back cash?
2026-10-15 · By Lubin Danilo, founder of Lubin Investment
Analyze a stock on Lubin Investment
On the accounts, Shell is the sturdier of the two: more free cash flow per dollar of sales, lighter debt, and free cash flow per share that has fallen less than feared. TotalEnergies offsets this with a rising dividend. Both depend on the oil price, and both remain expensive.
On 23 July 2026, TotalEnergies published its second quarter: adjusted net income of $6.0bn, cash flow of $9.8bn, a second dividend instalment of €0.90 per share (up 5.9%), and a buyback envelope of $1.5bn for the next quarter. The tone is reassuring, and gearing falls to 13%.
A week later, on 30 July, it was Shell's turn. The striking figure: $21.4bn of operating cash flow in the quarter, against $6.1bn the quarter before, and a new $3bn buyback, the nineteenth in a row at that level or higher. Two press releases, two speeches about generous payouts. Yet side by side, the two companies do not tell the same story.
I asked myself the question any investor asks when facing these two logos: if I must pick an oil major, which one best turns its sales into cash the shareholder can actually keep? Not the biggest profit of the quarter, not the prettiest headline dividend: free cash flow, meaning what is left after paying the investments needed to keep producing.
One quarter says nothing about cash, a series says almost everything
An oil company lives at the rhythm of the barrel. When prices rise, profits explode; when they fall, profits melt. The trap is to judge on a single quarter. At Shell, second quarter free cash flow is about $17.5bn, against $2.9bn in the first. Part of that gap is not performance: the first quarter absorbed $11.2bn of working capital (money tied up in inventories and receivables), and the second gave back $3.4bn. A quarter's cash is as much a matter of invoice timing as of profitability.
The long series is more honest. On my data, TotalEnergies free cash flow went from about $31.7bn in 2022 to $24.2bn in 2023, $17.4bn in 2024 and $11.6bn in 2025. Shell's went from about $45.8bn in 2022 to $31.2bn, $35.1bn, then $23.9bn in 2025. Both lost about half of their free cash flow since the 2022 peak, which is normal: 2022 had exceptional prices, and sales at both groups have fallen since (about 8.9% a year for Shell and 11.5% a year for TotalEnergies over five years).
Over the last twelve months, TotalEnergies is back to about $17.4bn of free cash flow in the same series: a second quarter at $6.6bn that erases a negative first quarter of $1.3bn. Free cash flow is no steady stream: in this trade a good year hides a bad one, and you must compare over a full cycle. So I compare slopes, not snapshots.
Buying back shares: cash coming back, or cash hiding something?
Both groups made the same weapon their signature: taking shares off the market. TotalEnergies cut its share count from about 2.76 billion to 2.23 billion between mid 2021 and mid 2026, 19% fewer. Shell went from 3.71 billion shares at end 2022 to 2.97 billion at end 2025, 20% fewer in just three years. The mechanism is simple: fewer shares means a bigger slice of the pie for those that remain, if the pie stays constant.
The pie did not stay constant. Free cash flow per share is free cash flow divided by the share count, the measure that matters to the shareholder. For TotalEnergies I compute about $12 in 2022 and about $5 in 2025. For Shell, from $12.4 to $8.0 over the same period, a 35% decline: buybacks cushioned the fall (without them it would be roughly 48%, nearly half the cash) but did not cancel it.
What this says about a buyback: it does not create value by itself. It transfers it to the remaining shareholders, provided it is done at a reasonable price. Repurchasing $3bn a quarter while free cash flow falls back is a commitment to honour, not proof of strength. Shell had in fact temporarily suspended its previous programme because of the agreement to acquire ARC Resources, with $1.8bn done out of $3.0bn. A buyback is a management choice, and it can be revised.
Debt: what the gearing ratio does not tell you
The gearing ratio is net debt divided by net debt plus equity. TotalEnergies shows 13%, Shell 18.7% with $41.8bn of net debt, sharply down from $52.6bn the previous quarter. Nothing worrying in either case: neither group looks fragile.
But this ratio looks at equity, not cash. A more telling question for judging solidity: in how many years of free cash flow could net debt be repaid? On my data, about 2.0 years for Shell and 3.5 years for TotalEnergies. The gap comes from TotalEnergies carrying a weaker free cash flow, not from heavier debt in itself. In a cyclical sector, debt that looks light at $90 a barrel gets heavier at $60, which is why I prefer the years of cash measure.
What the market asks in return
| Criterion | TotalEnergies | Shell |
|---|---|---|
| Free cash flow 2025 | ≈ $11.6bn | ≈ $23.9bn |
| Free cash flow to sales | 5.7% | 7.7% |
| Fewer shares (3 to 5 years) | -19% | -20% |
| Net debt in years of free cash flow | 3.5 | 2.0 |
| Valuation (times free cash flow) | 19.6 | 14.3 |
| Quality score | 4 out of 10 | 5 out of 10 |
The table shows a classic trade-off. Shell has the better conversion of sales into free cash flow (about 7.7% versus 5.7%), lighter debt and a lower valuation: about 14 times free cash flow versus about 20 for TotalEnergies. Put differently, the price asked for a euro of cash is higher at TotalEnergies, while that cash is more fragile. The market probably pays for dividend stability and the diversification into electricity, which Shell does not show to the same degree.
Yet I stay lucid about the method. My grid judges both companies clearly expensive: it speaks of a 79% overvaluation for Shell and 86% for TotalEnergies. That reading is harsh because it projects a normalised free cash flow over five years, while both groups' cash is currently inflated by high oil prices. For a cyclical it is a useful alarm rather than a prediction: it says you are buying at the top of the cash cycle, not that the stock will fall. The quality score reflects the same caution: 5 out of 10 for Shell, 4 out of 10 for TotalEnergies on its Paris line.
A practical point for investors in France: TotalEnergies is a French company, eligible for the PEA savings wrapper. Shell is British and listed in London, so in principle outside the PEA: the choice may hinge on the tax wrapper as much as on the numbers, which has nothing to do with the quality of the accounts. To extend the comparison, the TotalEnergies page and the Shell page give each criterion one by one.
My verdict: the better cash, not the prettier dividend
If the question is "who keeps the cash it generates best", the accounts answer Shell: better free cash flow margin, debt that is easier to repay, a lower valuation, and free cash flow per share that falls less than at TotalEnergies. If the question is "who offers regular income and exposure to electricity", the answer changes, and TotalEnergies has arguments, including a dividend raised 5.9% this year.
But neither ticks my quality criteria at a level that would make me look past the cycle. These are two companies whose cash depends on a price they do not control, and whose buybacks are as much an answer to a lack of highly profitable investments as proof of strength. I would look at them as well run cyclicals, not compounders. Figures are as of 15 October 2026; the original sources are the TotalEnergies second quarter 2026 press release and the Shell second quarter 2026 Form 6-K, and for general valuation method, Damodaran's courses remain a reference. This is exactly the kind of comparison I wanted to be able to run on any stock, and my methodology explains it criterion by criterion.
FAQ
TotalEnergies or Shell: which generates more free cash flow?
In 2025, Shell generated about $23.9bn of free cash flow against about $11.6bn for TotalEnergies, per the series used here. Relative to sales, Shell keeps about 7.7% as free cash flow against 5.7% for TotalEnergies.
Do Shell and TotalEnergies buybacks create value?
They cut the share count (about 20% fewer over three to five years), which protects free cash flow per share. But that figure still fell, by about 35% at Shell between 2022 and 2025, because total free cash flow fell faster.
Can TotalEnergies and Shell go in a French PEA?
TotalEnergies is a French company and remains PEA eligible. Shell is British, listed in London, and in principle does not qualify. Check eligibility with your broker before buying.
Related reading
- Caterpillar (CAT) vs Deere (DE): two cycles, two cash flows
- Airbus (AIR) or Boeing (BA): Who Makes the Cash?
- Booking (BKNG) or Airbnb (ABNB): who keeps the cash?
Analyze a stock on Lubin Investment
About the author
Written by Lubin Danilo, founder of Lubin Investment. A self-taught individual investor, I find fundamental analysis fascinating, and it has delivered excellent results. For three years now, my performance has beaten the S&P 500. But analyzing every stock took too much time: sites with incomplete data, calculation methods and criteria never aligned with mine. And spotting the best stocks was just as time-consuming, even with my own well-defined checklist. So I put my software development background to work to build this software, base my investment strategy on its results, and share it with people who share the same passion as me. It judges a company's quality and its price separately, using criteria drawn from the financial literature (Warren Buffett, Michael Mauboussin, Aswath Damodaran).