APA vs BTE Stock Comparison
Compare APA and BTE across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between APA and BTE?
APA leads the current stock comparison as APA Corporation, with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
APA Corporation vs Baytex Energy Corp.
APA leads
APA leads by 14 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Value, but the lead has narrowed from 17 points over 30 sessions.
Stable: 4 of 5 evidence groups support APA, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
APA Corporation
Baytex Energy Corp.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors APA over BTE, 60 versus 46 as of Sep 11, 2026. APA's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and value, while BTE holds the stronger risk resilience profile. APA also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 5 covered evidence groups favor APA today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability: the leader's advantage has been narrowing. APA lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 17 to 14 points over 30 sessions.
Compare APA Corporation and Baytex Energy Corp. across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Performance over time
Price-return comparison using available daily close history.
Total return comparison
Growth of $10,000
Based on available close-price history. Distribution reinvestment is not added unless already reflected in the source series.
Compare APA and BTE against another ticker
Open a multi-ticker workspace without changing this focused pair page.
AIQ Factor Divergence
Where the two separate, on the four dimensions behind the AIQ Score. Bars read outward from a shared zero: further from the centre is a wider gap.
- Quality65 vs 31APA +34
- Value62 vs 34APA +28
- Risk Resilience43 vs 64BTE +21
- Momentum62 vs 69BTE +7
4 of 5 evidence groups favor APA. APA’s edge is concentrated in quality and value; BTE keeps a meaningful risk resilience edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-10, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-09.
Largest factor move: Momentum -4
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum -1
No new signals fired.
APA's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — APA and BTE both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
APA (APA Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and value.
BTE (Baytex Energy Corp.): the counter-case, on risk resilience, momentum.
Which one fits your objective
The same two names rank differently depending on what you are optimizing for. All six reads are shown at once — none of them is hidden behind a toggle.
Balanced
APAAPA on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
APAAPA on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
APAAPA on the peer-relative Value factor, by 28 points.
Momentum
BTEBTE on the Momentum factor, by 7 points.
Lower downside
BTEBTE on Risk Resilience, by 21 points.
Analyst upside
EvenAnalyst targets are level or not covered for both names.
AIQ vs Wall Street
Where the systematic read and the analyst consensus line up — and where they do not.
| Measure | APA | BTE | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -0.7% | — | Level |
| Target dispersion | +47.3% | — | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 11 | 11 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
4 of 5 covered evidence groups favor APA. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | APA | 60 vs 46 |
| Fundamentals | APAon balance | revenue growth 3.1% vs 36.6%; EPS growth 67.5% vs 3.7%; TTM ROE 26.3% vs -26.4%; gross margin 38.8% vs 4.7%; operating margin 11.8% vs 51.1% — APA takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | APA | Value 62 vs 34 |
| Technicals | APA | Price vs 50-day 16.1% vs 13.8%; vs 200-day 31.4% vs 23.3% |
| Risk Resilience | BTE | Risk Resilience 43 vs 64 |
| Analyst expectations | Not covered | Not covered |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of APA and BTE and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion rests on a wide gap and broad agreement. It is unlikely to turn on a single session.
- The AIQ gap is wide at 14 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 4 of 5 covered evidence groups point the same way. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
Stability combines the score gap, how broadly the evidence agrees, how steady the lead has been across daily snapshots, the current signal state on both names, and analyst dispersion on APA.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10APA lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 17 to 14 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- APA +14
- 60 vs 46
- 7 sessions ago
- APA +13
- 60 vs 47
- 30 sessions ago
- APA +17
- 64 vs 47
- 90 sessions ago
- APA +18
- 55 vs 37
The lead has not changed hands in this window.
AIQ Signal Divergence
Only the signals that bear on the head-to-head. A conflicted name is carrying bullish and bearish rules at the same time — the technical evidence is not pointing one way.
4 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (13.71%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
4 bullish / 0 bearish
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (8.12%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
APA leads the comparison while carrying a conflicted signal state, which is one reason the stability rating is not higher.
Price vs model alignment
Whether the latest session's price move confirms what the model did over the same session, or contradicts it.
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +0.45%, AIQ -1 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved down over the latest session (price -0.2%, AIQ -1 points).
What would flip this result
A state, not a forecast. These are the specific, observable changes that would reverse the verdict — not a price prediction.
- 1BTE closes the Quality gap — currently 34 points behind, the largest single contributor to APA's edge.
- 2BTE's existing bullish trend signals translate into factor-score gains — the rules are already firing, but the scores have not yet followed.
- 3APA's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 4 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 3 points over 30 sessions, and a further 14-point move would eliminate APA's advantage entirely.
The full evidence
Every number behind the verdict. The leader is called above each group so you are not left to solve it from the table.
Fundamentals
APA leads on balance| Metric | APA | BTE |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 3.1% | 36.6% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 67.5% | 3.7% |
| Gross margin | 38.8% | 4.7% |
| Operating margin | 11.8% | 51.1% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 26.3% | -26.4% |
| Debt to equity | 0.55 | 0.07 |
Performance
APA leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | APA | BTE |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -0.4% | -0.6% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 11.4% | 15.6% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 17.2% | 6.1% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 35.1% | 22.9% |
| Year to date | 81.5% | 56% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 100% | 130.1% |
Technicals
APA has the stronger structure| Metric | APA | BTE |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 50.6 | 59 |
| ADX (14) | 25.3 | 23.1 |
| Price vs 50-day | 16.1% | 13.8% |
| Price vs 200-day | 31.4% | 23.3% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 34% | 32.3% |
Risk
BTE is the more resilient| Metric | APA | BTE |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | -0.77 | -0.13 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.71 | 1.92 |
| Sortino ratio | 2.79 | 3.14 |
| Max drawdown | -28.2% | -27.6% |
| Current drawdown | -0.7% | -5.3% |
| Annualized volatility | 46.3% | 46.3% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -4.1% | -4.4% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, APA or BTE?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, APA is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 60 against BTE's 46. The edge comes from quality and value. BTE is not without a case — it holds the better risk resilience profile, which matters more if that is the objective you are optimizing for. This is a systematic score, not a recommendation: it ranks the two on the same evidence, it does not know your holding period or tax position.
Is APA or BTE the better buy right now?
APA carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Stable — 4 of 5 covered evidence groups agree. A Stable rating means the gap is wide and the evidence is broad, so the conclusion is unlikely to turn on a single session.
Why does the AIQ Score favor APA over BTE?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. APA leads Quality by 34 points; APA leads Value by 28 points; BTE leads Risk Resilience by 21 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, APA or BTE?
Analyst price targets imply -0.7% upside for APA and not covered for BTE. The model and the Street agree here, which is a broader base of evidence than either alone. Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions, and dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Which is better value, APA or BTE?
APA is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. APA on the peer-relative Value factor, by 28 points. The Value factor reads valuation relative to sector peers and to the company's own fundamental quality, so it is not the same as simply having the lower multiple.
Which has stronger growth, APA or BTE?
APA on combined revenue and EPS growth. Growth here is measured on reported revenue and earnings, not on forward estimates — it describes what the businesses have delivered, not what the Street expects next.
Which has stronger momentum, APA or BTE?
BTE on the Momentum factor, by 7 points. Momentum is one of the four weighted factors in the AIQ composite. It has documented persistence over three- to twelve-month horizons, which makes it a timing input rather than a reason to hold something indefinitely.
Which is riskier, APA or BTE?
BTE is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. BTE on Risk Resilience, by 21 points. Risk Resilience is a weighted factor in the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is APA more profitable than BTE?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 38.8% vs 4.7%; operating margin 11.8% vs 51.1%; ttm roe 26.3% vs -26.4%. APA leads on two measures and BTE on one measure, and there is no single profitability composite that resolves the split — which of the two reads as "more profitable" depends on whether you weight pricing power or operating leverage.
Is APA's lead over BTE getting stronger or weaker?
APA lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 17 to 14 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the APA vs BTE verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: BTE closes the Quality gap — currently 34 points behind, the largest single contributor to APA's edge; BTE's existing bullish trend signals translate into factor-score gains — the rules are already firing, but the scores have not yet followed; APA's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 4 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 3 points over 30 sessions, and a further 14-point move would eliminate APA's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about APA and BTE?
APA: 4 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. BTE: 4 bullish / 0 bearish. A conflicted state means bullish and bearish rules are active on the same name at once — the technical evidence is not pointing one way, and a decision taken on it carries more timing risk. The most decision-relevant rule on APA is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On BTE it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare APA and BTE with others
Continue your research
This page answers which of the two. These answer the questions on either side of it.
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk, each carrying a fixed weight. Sentiment is reported separately as SentimentPulse and is not folded into the composite. Scores refresh every trading day, and this page regenerates from the latest snapshot rather than being written once.
The verdict names a leader, states how broadly six independent evidence groups agree, and rates how durable that conclusion is given the score gap, its recent trajectory and the current signal state on both names.
How to use side-by-side comparison →This comparison is informational and educational, not investment advice. AIQ scores update daily; re-check after earnings, guidance or macro data that materially changes either name’s factor profile.