AR vs CNQ Stock Comparison
CNQ currently leads AR in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 62 vs 52. The clearest difference is risk resilience.
What is the main difference between AR and CNQ?
CNQ leads the current stock comparison as Canadian Natural Resources Limited, with the clearest separation coming from risk resilience and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Antero Resources Corporation vs Canadian Natural Resources Limited
CNQ leads
CNQ leads by 10 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Quality. Wall Street currently favors AR on target upside.
Fragile: 4 of 6 evidence groups support CNQ, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Antero Resources Corporation
Canadian Natural Resources Limited
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors CNQ over AR, 62 versus 52 as of Oct 31, 2026. CNQ's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and quality. CNQ also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors AR. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor CNQ today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. CNQ lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 10 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Antero Resources Corporation and Canadian Natural Resources Limited across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Performance over time
Total return with distributions reinvested, from daily closes.
Total return comparison
Growth of $10,000, distributions reinvested
Split-adjusted closes; each distribution is reinvested at the close on its ex-dividend date. Taxes and trading costs are not modeled.
Compare AR and CNQ 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.
- Risk Resilience40 vs 63CNQ +23
- Quality47 vs 67CNQ +20
- Value41 vs 44Even
- Momentum80 vs 79Even
4 of 6 evidence groups favor CNQ. CNQ’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and quality.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-28, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-27.
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 6 active signals are unchanged.
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 7 active signals are unchanged.
CNQ's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — AR and CNQ both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
CNQ (Canadian Natural Resources Limited): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and quality.
AR (Antero Resources Corporation): the counter-case, on analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 30.1% against 24%.
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
CNQCNQ on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
CNQCNQ on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
CNQCNQ on Risk Resilience, by 23 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 CNQ, analyst targets favor AR. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | AR | CNQ | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +21.7% | -37.6% | AR has more room |
| Target dispersion | +33.2% | 0% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 11 | 1 | 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
4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor CNQ. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | CNQ | 52 vs 62 |
| Fundamentals | CNQ | revenue growth -28.2% vs 58.8%; EPS growth -48% vs 239.1%; TTM ROE 13.9% vs 26.7%; gross margin 26% vs 35%; operating margin 21% vs 32.3% |
| Valuation | Even | Value 41 vs 44 |
| Technicals | CNQ | Price vs 50-day 12.6% vs 11%; vs 200-day 14.5% vs 19.8% |
| Risk Resilience | CNQ | Risk Resilience 40 vs 63 |
| Analyst expectations | AR | Target upside 21.7% vs -37.6% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of AR and CNQ and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion is sensitive to small changes. Treat the lead as provisional and watch the flip conditions below.
- The AIQ gap is moderate at 10 points.
- 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 CNQ.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 29 – Oct 28CNQ lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 10 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- CNQ +10
- 52 vs 62
- 7 sessions ago
- CNQ +11
- 52 vs 63
- 30 sessions ago
- CNQ +8
- 42 vs 50
- 90 sessions ago
- CNQ +8
- 55 vs 63
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.
5 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
No signal that the other name lacks.
6 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
Only CNQ
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (0.3%)
Both carry 6 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, Keltner Channel Breakout, RSI Overbought, EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish, Uptrend Structure Active, MACD Bullish Crossover.
CNQ 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 +2.14%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +1.85%, 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 Risk Resilience gap — currently 23 points behind, the largest single contributor to CNQ's edge.
- 2AR's RSI Overbought resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 3CNQ's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 6 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4A regime shift changes factor weighting — Quality and Value carry the heaviest weights in the composite, 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
CNQ leads on balance| Metric | AR | CNQ |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -28.2% | 58.8% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -48% | 239.1% |
| Gross margin | 26% | 35% |
| Operating margin | 21% | 32.3% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 13.9% | 26.7% |
| Debt to equity | 0.55 | 0.37 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | AR | CNQ |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 9.3% | 1.1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 26.1% | 16.4% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 19.3% | 15.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 7.9% | 16.1% |
| Year to date | 22.2% | 60.2% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 28.8% | 75.3% |
Technicals
CNQ has the stronger structure| Metric | AR | CNQ |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 82.8 | 81.6 |
| ADX (14) | 26.5 | 31.2 |
| Price vs 50-day | 12.6% | 11% |
| Price vs 200-day | 14.5% | 19.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 30.1% | 24% |
Risk
CNQ is the more resilient| Metric | AR | CNQ |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | -0.37 | -0.49 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.82 | 1.84 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.28 | 2.63 |
| Max drawdown | -26.4% | -23% |
| Current drawdown | -6.7% | -0.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 37.9% | 31% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.9% | -3.1% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, AR or CNQ?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, CNQ is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 62 against AR's 52. The edge comes from risk resilience and quality. 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 CNQ the better buy right now?
CNQ carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 31, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 4 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor CNQ over AR?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. CNQ leads Risk Resilience by 23 points; CNQ leads Quality by 20 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, AR or CNQ?
Analyst price targets imply +21.7% upside for AR and -37.6% for CNQ, so the Street currently favors AR. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors CNQ. 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 CNQ?
Neither name separates on the peer-relative Value factor. The two are level on Value. 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 CNQ?
CNQ 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 CNQ?
The two are level on Momentum. 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, AR or CNQ?
CNQ is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. CNQ on Risk Resilience, by 23 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 AR more profitable than CNQ?
CNQ leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 26% vs 35%; operating margin 21% vs 32.3%; ttm roe 13.9% vs 26.7%.
Is CNQ's lead over AR getting stronger or weaker?
CNQ lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 10 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-29 and 2026-10-28. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the AR vs CNQ verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: AR closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 23 points behind, the largest single contributor to CNQ's edge; AR's RSI Overbought resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it; CNQ's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 6 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; a regime shift changes factor weighting — Quality and Value carry the heaviest weights in the composite, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
What do the current signals say about AR and CNQ?
AR: 5 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. CNQ: 6 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 Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On CNQ it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare AR and CNQ 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.