COMPARE · Data as of August 27, 2026
AM vs TRGP
Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. AM scored 50.2, TRGP scored 52.6 — TRGP leads.
Compare another set
AM
Antero Midstream Corporation
50.2
$22.53 · $10.7B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
2.4
TRGP leads
TRGP
Targa Resources Corp.
52.6
$294.03 · $63.0B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
- CheapestAM27.1x
- Fastest growthAM+6.9%
- Strongest balance sheetAM1.86
- Highest qualityTRGP77 / 100
- Largest discount to fair valueAM-57%
Side by side · every name on one set of axes
Growth against the P/E multiple. Up and to the right is cheaper and faster — the quality-growth idea in one picture. Points beyond the axis are pinned to the edge and marked off-scale rather than allowed to compress everything else.
The model, pillar by pillar (0–100 each)
AM
stronger →← stronger
TRGP
73
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
77
50
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
41
34
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
46
TRGP is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
AM
TRGP
$891mC+
FCF
$741mC+
+6.9%C+
Rev
-2.0%D+
1.86C
D/E
5.16D
27.1xC
P/E
27.4xC
1.66C+
PEG
1.25B
Winner per row is the stronger grade; where grades tie, the better figure breaks it. A true tie or a missing value shows no highlight.
Valuation · DCF cross-check
AM
TRGP
57% below
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
328% above
~-9%/yr
Growth the price implies10-yr FCF · lower = less priced in
~41%/yr
+95%
1-yr DCF upside
-77%
+132%
5-yr DCF upside
-77%
+202%
10-yr DCF upside
-76%
These two disagree on this pair: the Value pillar ranks cheapness against sector peers, while price-vs-fair-value is an absolute read. A name can be the better value in its sector and still the dearer one on cash flows.
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
AM
Why this score
- Cyclical growth
TRGP
Why this score
- Raising its dividend
- Durable high returns
The companies
AMAntero Midstream Corporation
Why now
Oil & Gas Midstream · market cap $10.7b. 5% off the 52-week high of $23.84. 7 sell-side analysts rate this a Hold with a mean 1-yr target of $24.29 (implying +8% upside).
Moat
Net margin 32% is exceptional — pricing-power territory rare outside premium software, branded staples, and specialty pharma. ROE 21% sits above Buffett's preferred 15% threshold — the equity base is compounding at a rate the market struggles to discount accurately. Free cash flow runs well ahead of reported net income — non-cash charges (depreciation, intangible amortization) are holding down GAAP earnings while cash generation stays strong.
Risk
Jurisdictional + permitting risk — mining and extraction operations concentrate exposure to political stability, royalty regimes, and environmental review timelines that can stall production for years.
TRGPTarga Resources Corp.
Why now
Oil & Gas Midstream · market cap $63.0b. 5% off the 52-week high of $307.94. 21 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $306.86 (implying +4% upside).
Moat
Net margin 14% beats the market median by a meaningful margin — the company is keeping more of every revenue dollar than the average S&P constituent. ROE 62% — top-decile capital efficiency. Either pricing leverage, low capital intensity, or aggressive buybacks; the durability story depends on which. $63.0b market cap gives the company enough scale to absorb fixed costs that subscale competitors can't, without yet being so large that growth has to come from acquisition.
Risk
D/E 5.16 is elevated — limits strategic flexibility and raises refinancing exposure if rates stay higher for longer. Jurisdictional + permitting risk — mining and extraction operations concentrate exposure to political stability, royalty regimes, and environmental review timelines that can stall production for years.
Verdict — model-derived comparison
Generating verdict… typically 5–10 seconds
Not investment advice. The Bull Rankings publishes a quantitative ranking model and accompanying analysis for general informational purposes only. Nothing on this page is a recommendation to buy, sell, or hold any security; nothing is personalized to your circumstances, risk tolerance, or tax situation. Investing carries the risk of loss — invest at your own risk and consider consulting a licensed financial professional before acting on anything you read here. See terms and methodology for full disclosures.
Where AM and TRGP diverge
On the headline score the gap is 2.4 points in favor of TRGP. They get there differently, though — each leads on a different pillar, so the better pick depends on which you weight.
- ValueAM 34.4 · TRGP 45.7TRGP +11.3
- GrowthAM 50.0 · TRGP 41.1AM +8.9
- QualityAM 73.4 · TRGP 77.4TRGP +4.0
Pillars run 0–100 against sector peers, so a score is a statement about a company relative to its own industry rather than to the other name here. A wide Value gap usually means the market already prices the difference in quality or growth — which is the trade-off this comparison comes down to.