Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. TPL scored 42.4, CNX scored 64.7 — CNX leads.
Compare another set
TPL
Texas Pacific Land Corporation
Oil & Gas E&P · Quality-Growth
42.4
$360.98 · $24.9B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
22.3
CNX leads
CNX
CNX Resources Corporation
Oil & Gas E&P · Quality-Growth
64.7
$34.03 · $5.0B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestCNX5.5x
Fastest growthCNX+48.9%
Strongest balance sheetTPL0.01
Highest qualityTPL90 / 100
Largest discount to fair valueCNX-66%
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)
TPL
stronger →← stronger
CNX
90
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
73
50
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
50
17
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
74
TPL and CNX split the three pillars evenly.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
TPL
CNX
$76mC-
FCF
$526mC+
+13.1%B+
Rev
+48.9%A
0.01A
D/E
0.49B
46.0xC
P/E
5.5xA
7.33D
PEG
1.93C+
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
TPL
CNX
1010% above
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
66% below
>60%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~-13%/yr
-92%
1-yr DCF upside
+138%
-91%
5-yr DCF upside
+194%
-88%
10-yr DCF upside
+303%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
TPL
Why this score
Raising its dividend
Durable high returns
Cyclical growth
CNX
Why this score
Diluting shareholders
Cyclical growth
The companies
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.
CNXCNX Resources Corporation
Oil & Gas E&P · $34.03 · beta 0.69
Why now
Oil & Gas E&P · market cap $5.0b. Down 22% from 52-week high of $43.62 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +49% — in hypergrowth territory. 11 sell-side analysts rate this a Hold with a mean 1-yr target of $37.64 (implying +11% upside).
Moat
Net margin 44% is exceptional — pricing-power territory rare outside premium software, branded staples, and specialty pharma. ROE 21% is above 15% — the equity base is compounding at a rate the market struggles to discount accurately.
Risk
Reserve-replacement treadmill — every barrel or ounce extracted has to be replaced through exploration or acquisition; underspending on replacement reserves shows up in production declines 2-3 years out.
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 TPL and CNX diverge
On the headline score the gap is 22.3 points in favor of CNX. They get there differently, though — each leads on a different pillar, so the better pick depends on which you weight.
ValueTPL 17.0 · CNX 73.6CNX +56.6
QualityTPL 89.6 · CNX 73.5TPL +16.1
GrowthTPL 50.0 · CNX 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 CNX or TPL the better stock?
CNX scores higher: CNX 64.7, 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 CNX and TPL differ most?
The widest gap is value, where CNX leads by 57 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 CNX 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.