Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. MGY scored 58.0, EQT scored 62.8 — EQT leads.
Compare another set
MGY
Magnolia Oil & Gas Corporation
Oil & Gas E&P · Quality-Growth
58
$24.10 · $6.6B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
4.8
EQT leads
EQT
EQT Corporation
Oil & Gas E&P · Quality-Growth
62.8
$52.83 · $33.0B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestMGY10.8x
Fastest growthEQT+60.0%
Strongest balance sheetMGY0.19
Highest qualityMGY91 / 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)
MGY
stronger →← stronger
EQT
91
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
72
50
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
50
43
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
68
MGY and EQT split the three pillars evenly.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
MGY
EQT
$546mC+
FCF
$3.8bB
+11.4%B
Rev
+60.0%A
0.19A-
D/E
0.20A-
10.8xB+
P/E
12.3xB+
4.26D
PEG
1.55C+
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
MGY
EQT
42% below
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
72% below
~-5%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~-15%/yr
+57%
1-yr DCF upside
+175%
+73%
5-yr DCF upside
+252%
+100%
10-yr DCF upside
+412%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
MGY
Why this score
Raising its dividend
Durable high returns
Cyclical growth
EQT
Why this score
Cyclical growth
The companies
MGYMagnolia Oil & Gas Corporation
Oil & Gas E&P · $24.10 · beta 0.79
Why now
Oil & Gas E&P · market cap $6.6b. Down 26% from 52-week high of $32.76 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +11%, comfortably above the S&P median. 17 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $33.24 (implying +38% 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 20% is above 15% — the equity base is compounding at a rate the market struggles to discount accurately. FCF converts 128% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash.
Risk
Hedge-book exposure — many commodity producers hedge forward production; if the hedge book is concentrated at prices well below spot, the upside the market expects is already locked away.
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.
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 MGY and EQT diverge
On the headline score the gap is 4.8 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.
ValueMGY 43.1 · EQT 68.4EQT +25.3
QualityMGY 90.5 · EQT 72.4MGY +18.1
GrowthMGY 50.0 · EQT 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 MGY the better stock?
EQT scores higher: EQT 62.8, MGY 58.0 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 MGY differ most?
The widest gap is value, where EQT leads by 25 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 MGY 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.