Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. EQT scored 62.8, FANG scored 47.2 — EQT leads.
Compare another set
EQT
EQT Corporation
Oil & Gas E&P · Quality-Growth
62.8
$52.83 · $33.0B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
15.6
EQT leads
FANG
Diamondback Energy, Inc.
Oil & Gas E&P · Quality-Growth
47.2
$192.13 · $53.8B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestEQT12.3x
Fastest growthEQT+60.0%
Strongest balance sheetEQT0.20
Highest qualityEQT72 / 100
Largest discount to fair valueEQT-72%
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)
EQT
stronger →← stronger
FANG
72
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
60
50
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
50
68
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
35
EQT is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
EQT
FANG
$3.8bB
FCF
$3.7bB
+60.0%A
Rev
+21.4%A-
0.20A-
D/E
0.29A-
12.3xB+
P/E
36.6xC
1.55C+
PEG
21.24D
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
EQT
FANG
72% below
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
57% below
~-15%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~-7%/yr
+175%
1-yr DCF upside
+87%
+252%
5-yr DCF upside
+135%
+412%
10-yr DCF upside
+233%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
EQT
Why this score
Cyclical growth
FANG
Why this score
Buying back stock
Raising its dividend
Cyclical growth
The companies
EQTEQT Corporation
Oil & Gas E&P · $52.83 · beta 0.65
Why now
Oil & Gas E&P · market cap $33.0b. Down 23% from 52-week high of $68.24 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +60% — in hypergrowth territory. 26 sell-side analysts rate this a Strong Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $67.19 (implying +27% upside).
Moat
Net margin 29% sits well above the S&P median (~11%) — suggests structural pricing advantage or cost discipline competitors can't quickly close. ROE 11% meets the long-run market sustainable threshold — solid but not differentiated; the durability comes from elsewhere. FCF converts 139% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash.
Risk
Production-cost sensitivity — top-quartile cost producers generate cash through the cycle while marginal producers burn it; watch the cost-per-unit trend, not just headline revenue.
FANGDiamondback Energy, Inc.
Oil & Gas E&P · $192.13 · beta 0.54
Why now
Oil & Gas E&P · market cap $53.8b. 11% off the 52-week high of $216.90. Revenue growing +21%, comfortably above the S&P median. 29 sell-side analysts rate this a Strong Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $234.66 (implying +22% upside).
Moat
Free cash flow runs well ahead of reported net income, mostly because of depreciation and amortization ($5.2b) — non-cash charges that hold down reported earnings while cash generation stays strong. $53.8b 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
Trailing P/E 37x sits well above the S&P median (~20x) — multiple compression is a real risk if revenue growth decelerates. ROE 4% is below the long-run sustainable threshold of ~10% — capital efficiency would need to improve for the equity base to compound at the market rate. Production-cost sensitivity — top-quartile cost producers generate cash through the cycle while marginal producers burn it; watch the cost-per-unit trend, not just headline revenue.
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 EQT and FANG diverge
On the headline score the gap is 15.6 points in favor of EQT. The widest single difference is Value, where EQT leads by 33.2 points.
ValueEQT 68.4 · FANG 35.2EQT +33.2
QualityEQT 72.4 · FANG 59.6EQT +12.8
GrowthEQT 50.0 · FANG 50.0level
Pillars run 0–100. Value is judged against each company's own sector, so a Value 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.
Common questions
Is EQT or FANG the better stock?
EQT scores higher: EQT 62.8, FANG 47.2 out of 100 on the Bull Rankings quality-growth score, which blends business quality, growth and valuation into one number. A higher score means a stronger business at a more reasonable price — it is not a price target or a recommendation.
Where do EQT and FANG differ most?
The widest gap is value, where EQT leads by 33 points on the 0–100 pillar scale. EQT also leads quality, while growth is effectively level between them.
How are EQT and FANG scored?
Each carries the same 0–100 quality-growth score used everywhere on the site, built from three pillars — quality (profitability and returns on capital), growth (revenue and earnings), and value (what you pay for them) — combined as a geometric mean, so a weak pillar cannot be papered over by a strong one.
How current is this comparison?
The whole universe is re-scored every trading day after the US market close, so the scores and fundamentals here reflect the latest published edition.