Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. EQT scored 62.8, SM scored 61.5 — 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
1.3
EQT leads
SM
SM Energy Company
Oil & Gas E&P · Quality-Growth
61.5
$37.00 · $8.8B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestSM6.6x
Fastest growthSM+65.9%
Strongest balance sheetEQT0.20
Highest qualitySM73 / 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
SM
72
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
73
50
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
50
68
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
64
EQT and SM split the three pillars evenly.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
EQT
SM
$3.8bB
FCF
$743mC+
+60.0%A
Rev
+65.9%A
0.20A-
D/E
0.95C+
12.3xB+
P/E
6.6xA
1.55C+
PEG
0.62A-
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
SM
72% below
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
48% below
~-15%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~-2%/yr
+175%
1-yr DCF upside
+53%
+252%
5-yr DCF upside
+94%
+412%
10-yr DCF upside
+174%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
EQT
Why this score
Cyclical growth
SM
Why this score
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.
SMSM Energy Company
Oil & Gas E&P · $37.00 · beta 0.96
Why now
Oil & Gas E&P · market cap $8.8b. 11% off the 52-week high of $41.56. Revenue growing +66% — in hypergrowth territory. PEG 0.62 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 17 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $44.18 (implying +19% upside).
Moat
Net margin 19% beats the market median by a meaningful margin — the company is keeping more of every revenue dollar than the average S&P constituent. ROE 13% meets the long-run market sustainable threshold — solid but not differentiated; the durability comes from elsewhere.
Risk
Commodity exposure — earnings power tracks the price of the underlying commodity, not management execution. A 15-20% move in the commodity reprices the equity well before fundamentals catch up.
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 SM diverge
On the headline score the gap is 1.3 points in favor of EQT. The widest single difference is Value, where EQT leads by 4.5 points.
ValueEQT 68.4 · SM 63.9EQT +4.5
QualityEQT 72.4 · SM 73.0level
GrowthEQT 50.0 · SM 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 SM the better stock?
EQT scores higher: EQT 62.8, SM 61.5 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 SM differ most?
The widest gap is value, where EQT leads by 5 points on the 0–100 pillar scale. The other two pillars are close enough to call level, so this is the one place they genuinely separate.
How are EQT and SM 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.