AR vs CHRD Stock Comparison
Compare AR and CHRD across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between AR and CHRD?
CHRD leads the current stock comparison as Chord Energy Corporation, with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Antero Resources Corporation vs Chord Energy Corporation
CHRD leads
CHRD leads by 6 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Risk Resilience. Wall Street currently favors AR on target upside.
Competitive: 5 of 6 evidence groups support CHRD, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Antero Resources Corporation
Chord Energy Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors CHRD over AR, 58 versus 52 as of Sep 6, 2026. CHRD's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and risk resilience, while AR holds the stronger momentum profile. CHRD also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors AR. 5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor CHRD today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. CHRD lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 6 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Antero Resources Corporation and Chord Energy Corporation 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 AR and CHRD 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.
- Value30%41 vs 63CHRD +22
- Momentum25%79 vs 66AR +13
- Risk Resilience15%41 vs 48CHRD +7
- Quality30%47 vs 50Even
5 of 6 evidence groups favor CHRD. CHRD’s edge is concentrated in value and risk resilience; AR keeps a meaningful momentum edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-05, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-04.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
CHRD's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — AR and CHRD both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
CHRD (Chord Energy Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and risk resilience.
AR (Antero Resources Corporation): the counter-case, on momentum, analyst expectations.
The AIQ Score and Wall Street therefore point in different directions on this pair.
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
CHRDCHRD on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
CHRDCHRD on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
CHRDCHRD on the peer-relative Value factor, by 22 points.
Momentum
ARAR on the Momentum factor, by 13 points.
Lower downside
CHRDCHRD on Risk Resilience, by 7 points.
Analyst upside
ARAR on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors CHRD, analyst targets favor AR. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | AR | CHRD | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +30.9% | +13.9% | AR has more room |
| Target dispersion | +36.8% | +29.4% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 12 | 7 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
The two are measuring different things. The AIQ Score reads current fundamentals, valuation, trend and risk; analyst targets price forward expectations. A divergence of this kind is either a contrarian opportunity or a sign the model is missing something already priced in — it is worth resolving before acting on either.
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor CHRD. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | CHRD | 52 vs 58 |
| Fundamentals | CHRDon balance | revenue growth -28.2% vs 30.4%; EPS growth -48% vs 3.9%; TTM ROE 13.9% vs 10.4%; gross margin 26% vs 27.4%; operating margin 21% vs 18.9% — CHRD takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | CHRD | Value 41 vs 63 |
| Technicals | CHRD | Price vs 50-day 9.5% vs 9.6%; vs 200-day 8.6% vs 21% |
| Risk Resilience | CHRD | Risk Resilience 41 vs 48 |
| Analyst expectations | AR | Target upside 30.9% vs 13.9% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of AR and CHRD and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
- The AIQ gap is moderate at 6 points.
- 5 of 6 covered evidence groups point the same way. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 CHRD.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 24 – Sep 5CHRD lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 6 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- CHRD +6
- 52 vs 58
- 7 sessions ago
- CHRD +6
- 53 vs 59
- 30 sessions ago
- CHRD +4
- 54 vs 58
- 90 sessions ago
- Level
- 48 vs 48
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.
2 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (0.75%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
3 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (10.40%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
CHRD 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.
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -0.71%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -1.09%, AIQ 0 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.
- 1AR closes the Value gap — currently 22 points behind, the largest single contributor to CHRD's edge.
- 2AR's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3CHRD's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4A regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
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
CHRD leads on balance| Metric | AR | CHRD |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -28.2% | 30.4% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -48% | 3.9% |
| Gross margin | 26% | 27.4% |
| Operating margin | 21% | 18.9% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 13.9% | 10.4% |
| Debt to equity | 0.55 | 0.18 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | AR | CHRD |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 2.5% | 0.3% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 13.5% | 11.5% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 10.8% | 8.6% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 1.5% | 20.6% |
| Year to date | 14.4% | 57.9% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 24% | 36.9% |
Technicals
CHRD has the stronger structure| Metric | AR | CHRD |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 83 | 56.1 |
| ADX (14) | 23.8 | 19.1 |
| Price vs 50-day | 9.5% | 9.6% |
| Price vs 200-day | 8.6% | 21% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 31.8% | 36% |
Risk
CHRD is the more resilient| Metric | AR | CHRD |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | -0.16 | -0.55 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.6 | 0.88 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.95 | 1.38 |
| Max drawdown | -26.4% | -25.4% |
| Current drawdown | -12.7% | -2.7% |
| Annualized volatility | 37.4% | 39.5% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -4% | -3.8% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, AR or CHRD?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, CHRD is the stronger of the two as of Sep 6, 2026, scoring 58 against AR's 52. The edge comes from value and risk resilience. AR is not without a case — it holds the better momentum 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 AR or CHRD the better buy right now?
CHRD carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 6, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 5 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Competitive rating means the two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
Why does the AIQ Score favor CHRD over AR?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. CHRD leads Value by 22 points; AR leads Momentum by 13 points; CHRD leads Risk Resilience by 7 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, AR or CHRD?
Analyst price targets imply +30.9% upside for AR and +13.9% for CHRD, so the Street currently favors AR. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors CHRD. The two are measuring different things: the model reads current fundamentals, valuation, trend and risk; the Street is pricing forward expectations. A divergence of this kind is either a contrarian opportunity or a sign the model is missing something the analysts have already priced — it is the single most useful row on this page to investigate. Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions, and dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Which is better value, AR or CHRD?
CHRD is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. CHRD on the peer-relative Value factor, by 22 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, AR or CHRD?
CHRD 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, AR or CHRD?
AR on the Momentum factor, by 13 points. Momentum carries 25% of 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, AR or CHRD?
CHRD is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. CHRD on Risk Resilience, by 7 points. The Risk Resilience factor weights 15% of the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is AR more profitable than CHRD?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 26% vs 27.4%; operating margin 21% vs 18.9%; ttm roe 13.9% vs 10.4%. AR leads on two measures and CHRD 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 CHRD's lead over AR getting stronger or weaker?
CHRD lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 6 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-24 and 2026-09-05. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the AR vs CHRD verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: AR closes the Value gap — currently 22 points behind, the largest single contributor to CHRD's edge; AR's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; CHRD's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; a regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
What do the current signals say about AR and CHRD?
AR: 2 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. CHRD: 3 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. 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 AR is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On CHRD it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare AR and CHRD with others
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality (30%), Value (30%), Momentum (25%) and Risk (15%). 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.