COMPARE · Data as of August 21, 2026
EQT vs SM
Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. EQT scored 57.3, SM scored 61.4 — SM leads.
Compare another set
EQT
EQT Corporation
57.3
$53.72 · $33.6B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
4.1
SM leads
SM
SM Energy Company
61.4
$37.20 · $8.8B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
- CheapestSM6.6x
- Fastest growthSM+75.4%
- Strongest balance sheetEQT0.20
- Highest qualityEQT73 / 100
- Largest discount to fair valueEQT-53%
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
73
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
73
50
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
50
51
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
64
EQT and SM split the three pillars evenly.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
EQT
SM
$3.8bB
FCF
$743mC+
+32.3%A
Rev
+75.4%A
0.20A-
D/E
0.95C+
12.5xB+
P/E
6.6xA
1.53C+
PEG
0.65A-
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
53% below
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
39% below
~-17%/yr
Growth the price implies10-yr FCF · lower = less priced in
~-7%/yr
+131%
1-yr DCF upside
+59%
+113%
5-yr DCF upside
+63%
+88%
10-yr DCF upside
+69%
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
Why now
Oil & Gas E&P · market cap $33.6b. Down 21% from 52-week high of $68.24 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +32% — in hypergrowth territory. 25 sell-side analysts rate this a Strong Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $67.72 (implying +26% upside).
Moat
Net margin 28% 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, a sign that working capital and capex are well-disciplined.
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
Why now
Oil & Gas E&P · market cap $8.8b. Trading near 52-week high of $38.25 — momentum setup, limited technical margin of safety. Revenue growing +75% — in hypergrowth territory. PEG 0.65 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 15 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $40.60 (implying +9% upside).
Moat
Net margin 18% 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
Trading within 3% of the 52-week high — limited technical margin of safety; a momentum reversal would test conviction. 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 4.1 points in favor of SM. The widest single difference is Value, where SM leads by 12.3 points.
- ValueEQT 51.3 · SM 63.6SM +12.3
- QualityEQT 73.4 · SM 72.8level
- GrowthEQT 50.0 · SM 50.0level
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.