Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. RRC scored 66.0, TPL scored 42.4 — RRC leads.
Compare another set
RRC
Range Resources Corporation
Oil & Gas E&P · Quality-Growth
66
$40.89 · $9.6B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
23.6
RRC leads
TPL
Texas Pacific Land Corporation
Oil & Gas E&P · Quality-Growth
42.4
$360.98 · $24.9B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestRRC11.3x
Fastest growthRRC+17.3%
Strongest balance sheetTPL0.01
Highest qualityTPL90 / 100
Largest discount to fair valueRRC-68%
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)
RRC
stronger →← stronger
TPL
88
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
90
50
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
50
65
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
17
RRC and TPL split the three pillars evenly.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
RRC
TPL
$1.4bC+
FCF
$76mC-
+17.3%B+
Rev
+13.1%B+
0.22A-
D/E
0.01A
11.3xB+
P/E
46.0xC
0.86B+
PEG
7.33D
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
RRC
TPL
68% below
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
1010% above
~-19%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
>60%/yr
+188%
1-yr DCF upside
-92%
+211%
5-yr DCF upside
-91%
+248%
10-yr DCF upside
-88%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
RRC
Why this score
Raising its dividend
Cyclical growth
TPL
Why this score
Raising its dividend
Durable high returns
Cyclical growth
The companies
RRCRange Resources Corporation
Oil & Gas E&P · $40.89 · beta 0.71
Why now
Oil & Gas E&P · market cap $9.6b. 15% off the 52-week high of $48.31. Revenue growing +17%, comfortably above the S&P median. PEG 0.86 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 23 sell-side analysts rate this a Hold with a mean 1-yr target of $45.57 (implying +11% upside).
Moat
Net margin 26% sits well above the S&P median (~11%) — suggests structural pricing advantage or cost discipline competitors can't quickly close. ROE 18% is above 15% — the equity base is compounding at a rate the market struggles to discount accurately. FCF converts 158% 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.
TPLTexas Pacific Land Corporation
Oil & Gas E&P · $360.98 · beta 0.59
Why now
Oil & Gas E&P · market cap $24.9b. Down 34% from 52-week high of $547.20 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +13%, comfortably above the S&P median.
Moat
Net margin 60% is exceptional — pricing-power territory rare outside premium software, branded staples, and specialty pharma. ROE 37% — top-decile capital efficiency. Either pricing leverage, low capital intensity, or aggressive buybacks; the durability story depends on which.
Risk
Down 34% from the 52-week high — the market is pricing in something the screen can't see; verify the bear case before sizing up. Trailing P/E 46x sits well above the S&P median (~20x) — multiple compression is a real risk if revenue growth decelerates. P/S 27.7x embeds aggressive forward growth — disappointing top-line guidance would compress the multiple hard.
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 RRC and TPL diverge
On the headline score the gap is 23.6 points in favor of RRC. The widest single difference is Value, where RRC leads by 48.3 points.
ValueRRC 65.3 · TPL 17.0RRC +48.3
QualityRRC 88.1 · TPL 89.6level
GrowthRRC 50.0 · TPL 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 RRC or TPL the better stock?
RRC scores higher: RRC 66.0, TPL 42.4 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 RRC and TPL differ most?
The widest gap is value, where RRC leads by 48 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 RRC and TPL 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.