The Williams Companies holds the cleaner structural position, with growth as the main driver and stability adding further support. Antero Midstream still has the edge on profitability, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. The market setup is mixed, without a decisive signal in either direction. The market is not adding a decisive signal either way — the structural read carries the weight.
The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels.
The comparison is mainly decided in growth, with the rest of the profile carrying less weight.
Both operate in: Oil & Gas Midstream
This comparison is based on industry proximity, not on functional trajectory similarity. AM and WMB share the same industry classification.
For a similarity-based comparison, see how Antero Midstream and The Williams Companies each position within their functional peer groups in AssetNext.
Scores reflect position relative to comparable companies with similar long-term financial trajectories.
The clearest separation appears in growth.
Left means cheaper relative valuation. Higher means stronger structure.
The Williams Companies, Inc. occupies the cheaper side of the setup map, although Antero Midstream Corporation still holds the stronger structural profile.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
Earnings growth is one contributing factor within the growth lead.
Profitability still favours Antero Midstream, with a 18.2-point operating margin advantage keeping the comparison from looking fully resolved.
Growth is the clearest driver of the lead, with stability adding further support — though profitability still provides a real counterweight.
Break down the AM vs WMB comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how AM and WMB each compare against other companies in their peer groups.
Rule-based, descriptive analysis only. Derived from peer percentile dimensions. Not investment advice. Peer groups are determined algorithmically based on structural similarity — not by sector classification alone.
AssetNext scores reflect each company's structural position within its functional peer group — not a ranking against all stocks simultaneously. Peers are identified by similarity across eight financial dimensions, including revenue growth trajectory, margin structure, capital intensity, and earnings stability. A score of 75 means the company ranks in the top quartile within its own peer group, not the entire market.
Four dimension scores drive the overall peer score: Growth (revenue trajectory and expansion dynamics), Quality (margin structure and capital efficiency), Valuation (peer-relative pricing on standard multiples), and Stability (earnings consistency and financial predictability). Each dimension is scored 0–100 relative to the peer group, then combined into an overall peer score using equal weighting.
Scores are recalculated periodically as underlying financial data is updated. All analysis is descriptive and rule-based — AssetNext describes structural realities and never issues buy, sell or hold recommendations.