BKR vs MPC Stock Comparison
MPC currently leads BKR in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 47 vs 42. The clearest difference is value, while BKR has the stronger risk resilience profile.
What is the main difference between BKR and MPC?
MPC leads the current stock comparison as Marathon Petroleum Corporation, with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Baker Hughes Company vs Marathon Petroleum Corporation
MPC leads
MPC leads by 5 AIQ points, primarily on Value, but the lead has narrowed from 15 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors BKR on target upside.
Fragile: 4 of 6 evidence groups support MPC, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Baker Hughes Company
Marathon Petroleum Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors MPC over BKR, 47 versus 42 as of Oct 31, 2026. MPC's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value, while BKR holds the stronger risk resilience profile. MPC also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors BKR. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor MPC today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 5 points. MPC lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 15 to 5 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Baker Hughes Company and Marathon Petroleum Corporation 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 BKR and MPC 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.
- Value35 vs 59MPC +24
- Risk Resilience59 vs 39BKR +20
- Quality45 vs 48Even
- Momentum38 vs 37Even
4 of 6 evidence groups favor MPC. MPC’s edge is concentrated in value; BKR keeps a meaningful risk resilience edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-28, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-27.
Largest factor move: Momentum -29
New signals
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (3.55%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum -7
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
The lead changed hands: MPC moved ahead of BKR in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — BKR and MPC both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
MPC (Marathon Petroleum Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value.
BKR (Baker Hughes Company): the counter-case, on risk resilience, 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
MPCMPC on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
MPCMPC on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
MPCMPC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 24 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
BKRBKR on Risk Resilience, by 20 points.
Analyst upside
BKRBKR on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors MPC, analyst targets favor BKR. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | BKR | MPC | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +28.7% | -15.4% | BKR has more room |
| Target dispersion | +36.6% | +78.4% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 10 | 10 | 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.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | BKR | MPC |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 5.02% | 9.96% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $0.720 | $2.320 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $0.920 | $3.730 |
| Years increased | 4 | 4 |
| No cut in window | Yes | Yes |
| Cohort rank | #253 | #105 |
MPC grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 9.96% a year against BKR's 5.02%. Neither company reduced its regular dividend in any year of the window.
Yield and payout ratio shown elsewhere on this page are current values, not part of the study window.
Split-adjusted regular dividends per share, 2020–2025, excluding special dividends. Research as of Sep 19, 2026.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor MPC. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | MPC | 42 vs 47 |
| Fundamentals | MPCon balance | revenue growth 2.4% vs 50.4%; EPS growth -26.6% vs 9.2%; TTM ROE 16.3% vs 48.7%; gross margin 23.6% vs 11.6%; operating margin 12.9% vs 8% — MPC takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | MPC | Value 35 vs 59 |
| Technicals | MPC | Price vs 50-day -5.6% vs 7.3%; vs 200-day -9.2% vs 53.1% |
| Risk Resilience | BKR | Risk Resilience 59 vs 39 |
| Analyst expectations | BKR | Target upside 28.7% vs -15.4% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of BKR and MPC 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 narrow at 5 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Analyst targets on the leader are widely dispersed. (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 MPC.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 29 – Oct 28MPC lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 15 to 5 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- MPC +5
- 42 vs 47
- 7 sessions ago
- MPC +11
- 43 vs 54
- 30 sessions ago
- MPC +15
- 43 vs 58
- 90 sessions ago
- MPC +11
- 49 vs 60
The lead changed hands 4 times in this window, most recently on Oct 28 when MPC moved ahead of BKR.
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.
1 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only BKR
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (2.93%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
3 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only MPC
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (44.03%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 1 more signal that do not separate them: ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode.
MPC 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 8 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +1.32%, AIQ -8 points).
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 2 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +2.83%, AIQ -2 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.
- 1BKR closes the Value gap — currently 24 points behind, the largest single contributor to MPC's edge.
- 2BKR's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3MPC's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 10 points over 30 sessions, and a further 5-point move would eliminate MPC'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
MPC leads on balance| Metric | BKR | MPC |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 2.4% | 50.4% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -26.6% | 9.2% |
| Gross margin | 23.6% | 11.6% |
| Operating margin | 12.9% | 8% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 16.3% | 48.7% |
| Debt to equity | 0.82 | 1.8 |
Performance
MPC leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | BKR | MPC |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -2.4% | -5.8% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -0.4% | 11.5% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -8.7% | 40.3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -18.2% | 82.3% |
| Year to date | 20% | 171% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 15.6% | 124.6% |
Technicals
MPC has the stronger structure| Metric | BKR | MPC |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 45.2 | 40.9 |
| ADX (14) | 19 | 33.4 |
| Price vs 50-day | -5.6% | 7.3% |
| Price vs 200-day | -9.2% | 53.1% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 41.2% | 43.8% |
Risk
BKR is the more resilient| Metric | BKR | MPC |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.67 | -0.26 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.45 | 2.36 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.66 | 3.48 |
| Max drawdown | -24.2% | -18.7% |
| Current drawdown | -21.5% | -9.1% |
| Annualized volatility | 34.2% | 36.4% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.8% | -3.6% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, BKR or MPC?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, MPC is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 47 against BKR's 42. The edge comes from value. BKR 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 BKR or MPC the better buy right now?
MPC 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 AIQ gap is narrow at 5 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor MPC over BKR?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. MPC leads Value by 24 points; BKR leads Risk Resilience by 20 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, BKR or MPC?
Analyst price targets imply +28.7% upside for BKR and -15.4% for MPC, so the Street currently favors BKR. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors MPC. 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, BKR or MPC?
MPC is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. MPC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 24 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, BKR or MPC?
MPC 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, BKR or MPC?
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, BKR or MPC?
BKR is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. BKR on Risk Resilience, by 20 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 BKR more profitable than MPC?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 23.6% vs 11.6%; operating margin 12.9% vs 8%; ttm roe 16.3% vs 48.7%. BKR leads on two measures and MPC 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 MPC's lead over BKR getting stronger or weaker?
MPC lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 15 to 5 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-29 and 2026-10-28. The lead has changed hands 4 times in that window, most recently on 2026-10-28, when MPC moved ahead of BKR.
What would change the BKR vs MPC verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: BKR closes the Value gap — currently 24 points behind, the largest single contributor to MPC's edge; BKR's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; MPC's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 10 points over 30 sessions, and a further 5-point move would eliminate MPC's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about BKR and MPC?
BKR: 1 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted. MPC: 3 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, 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 BKR is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On MPC it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare BKR and MPC 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.