The structural profiles are close, with Coterra Energy carrying a narrow edge on profitability. Texas Pacific Land still leads on growth and profitability, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. On the market side, Coterra Energy is in better shape — its trend is intact while Texas Pacific Land's trend has broken down. That puts structure and market broadly in agreement — Coterra Energy's lead looks more confirmed than conflicted.
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.
The page question resolves through profitability, where Texas Pacific Land Corporation holds the stronger read even though the broader score still favours Coterra Energy Inc..
Both operate in: Oil & Gas E&P
This comparison is based on industry proximity, not on functional trajectory similarity. CTRA and TPL share the same industry classification.
For a similarity-based comparison, see how Coterra Energy and Texas Pacific Land each position within their functional peer groups in AssetNext.
Scores reflect position relative to comparable companies with similar long-term financial trajectories.
The largest gaps do not all point in the same direction.
Left means cheaper relative valuation. Higher means stronger structure.
Texas Pacific Land Corporation occupies the cheaper side of the setup map, although Coterra Energy Inc. still holds the stronger structural profile.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
Where CTRA and TPL each sit in their own 5-year price and valuation history.
Describes historical entry positioning only. Descriptive — not investment advice.
The profitability gap is very wide, with the stronger side earning materially better operating marks.
Earnings growth also leans toward TPL, which keeps the score lead from reading as a full growth sweep.
The lead is built on both profitability and valuation — though growth still provides a counterweight.
Break down the CTRA vs TPL comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how CTRA and TPL 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.