Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. SHEL scored 53.1, EQT scored 62.8 — EQT leads.
Compare another set
Different reporting periods. EQT's fundamentals are as of June 2026, but SHEL'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.
SHEL
Shell plc
Oil & Gas Integrated · Quality-Growth
53.1
$100.18 · $285.1B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
9.7
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
CheapestSHEL11.1x
Fastest growthEQT+60.0%
Strongest balance sheetEQT0.20
Highest qualitySHEL72 / 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)
SHEL
stronger →← stronger
EQT
72
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
72
43
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
50
48
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
68
EQT is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
SHEL
EQT
$31.5bA
FCF
$3.8bB
-6.1%D
Rev
+60.0%A
0.40B+
D/E
0.20A-
11.1xB+
P/E
12.3xB+
1.70C+
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
SHEL
EQT
25% below
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
72% below
~-8%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~-15%/yr
+50%
1-yr DCF upside
+175%
+34%
5-yr DCF upside
+252%
+14%
10-yr DCF upside
+412%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
SHEL
Why this score
Buying back stock
Raising its dividend
EQT
Why this score
Cyclical growth
The companies
SHELShell plc
Oil & Gas Integrated · $100.18 · beta -0.19
Why now
Oil & Gas Integrated · market cap $285.1b. Trading near 52-week high of $101.17 — momentum setup, limited technical margin of safety. Revenue -6% — in contraction; any catalyst that reverses this triggers re-rating. 15 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $104.29 (implying +4% upside).
Moat
ROE 10% meets the long-run market sustainable threshold — solid but not differentiated; the durability comes from elsewhere. FCF converts 174% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash. $285.1b market cap places it among the largest companies in the sector — distribution, R&D, and customer-acquisition costs amortize across a base peers can't replicate.
Risk
Revenue contracting -6% — the operational turn is not yet visible in the top line. Trading within 1% 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.
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 SHEL and EQT diverge
On the headline score the gap is 9.7 points in favor of EQT. The widest single difference is Value, where EQT leads by 20.0 points.
ValueSHEL 48.4 · EQT 68.4EQT +20.0
GrowthSHEL 42.6 · EQT 50.0EQT +7.4
QualitySHEL 72.4 · EQT 72.4level
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 SHEL the better stock?
EQT scores higher: EQT 62.8, SHEL 53.1 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 SHEL differ most?
The widest gap is value, where EQT leads by 20 points on the 0–100 pillar scale. EQT also leads growth, while quality is effectively level between them.
How are EQT and SHEL 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.