EQT leads structurally, with growth as the clearest single gap between the two profiles. Coterra Energy still has the edge on stability, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. In the market, Coterra Energy carries the stronger setup — intact trend against EQT's broken trend. That leaves a split case: the structural lead stays with EQT, but the market is not currently confirming it.
The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels. Both peer scores are relative to the S&P 500 universe, making them directly comparable.
Growth still does most of the heavy lifting in this comparison. EQT Corporation leads by 8 points on the overall comparison score.
Both operate in: Oil & Gas E&P
This comparison is based on industry proximity, not on functional trajectory similarity. CTRA and EQT share the same industry classification.
For a similarity-based comparison, see how Coterra Energy and EQT 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.
EQT Corporation looks stronger on relative valuation, while the broader price setup remains mixed.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
Where CTRA and EQT each sit in their own 4.9-year price and valuation history.
Describes historical entry positioning only. Descriptive — not investment advice.
Revenue growth reinforces the category-level growth lead.
On the market side, Coterra Energy carries the stronger trend while EQT's trend has broken — the market setup does not confirm the structural advantage.
Growth points more clearly to EQT Corporation, but stability still runs the other way — keeping the broader result from looking fully settled.
Break down the CTRA vs EQT comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how CTRA and EQT 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.
Because scores are peer-relative, the same company can have slightly different scores in different index universes. On comparison pages, both companies are shown within their shared peer universe wherever possible — so the scores are directly comparable. The peer basis is stated on each score card.
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.