Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. EQT scored 62.8, SU scored 56.7 — EQT leads.
Compare another set
Different reporting periods. EQT's fundamentals are as of June 2026, but SU's are as of December 2025 — a 6-month gap. Growth, margin and valuation figures below therefore describe different windows and aren't strictly like-for-like.
EQT
EQT Corporation
Oil & Gas E&P · Quality-Growth
62.8
$52.83 · $33.0B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
6.1
EQT leads
SU
Suncor Energy Inc.
Oil & Gas Integrated · Quality-Growth
56.7
$72.23 · $85.3B
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 qualitySU79 / 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
SU
72
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
79
50
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
44
68
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
62
EQT is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
EQT
SU
$3.8bB
FCF
$7.2bB+
+60.0%A
Rev
-4.6%D+
0.20A-
D/E
0.30A-
12.3xB+
P/E
13.3xB
1.55C+
PEG
11.40D
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
SU
72% below
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
35% below
~-15%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~-10%/yr
+175%
1-yr DCF upside
+72%
+252%
5-yr DCF upside
+53%
+412%
10-yr DCF upside
+30%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
EQT
Why this score
Cyclical growth
SU
Why this score
Buying back stock
Raising its dividend
Durable high returns
Foreign reporter (CAD)
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.
SUSuncor Energy Inc.
Oil & Gas Integrated · $72.23 · beta 0.59
Why now
Oil & Gas Integrated · market cap $85.3b. Trading near 52-week high of $72.46 — momentum setup, limited technical margin of safety. 3 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $69.76 (implying -3% upside).
Moat
ROE 13% meets the long-run market sustainable threshold — solid but not differentiated; the durability comes from elsewhere. FCF converts 116% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash. $85.3b 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
Trading within 0% of the 52-week high — limited technical margin of safety; a momentum reversal would test conviction. 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 EQT and SU diverge
On the headline score the gap is 6.1 points in favor of EQT. They get there differently, though — each leads on a different pillar, so the better pick depends on which you weight.
GrowthEQT 50.0 · SU 43.5EQT +6.5
ValueEQT 68.4 · SU 61.9EQT +6.5
QualityEQT 72.4 · SU 78.8SU +6.4
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 SU the better stock?
EQT scores higher: EQT 62.8, SU 56.7 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 SU differ most?
The widest gap is growth, where EQT leads by 7 points on the 0–100 pillar scale. Neither name sweeps: they trade the lead across the three pillars, so the comparison is a trade-off rather than one being better on every measure.
How are EQT and SU 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.