BTI vs ET Stock Comparison
BTI currently leads ET in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 60 vs 46. The clearest difference is quality, while ET has the stronger value profile.
What is the main difference between BTI and ET?
BTI leads the current stock comparison as British American Tobacco p.l.c., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
British American Tobacco p.l.c. vs Energy Transfer LP
BTI leads
BTI leads by 14 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Momentum, and the lead has widened from 3 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors ET on target upside.
Competitive: 3 of 6 evidence groups support BTI, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
British American Tobacco p.l.c.
Energy Transfer LP
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors BTI over ET, 60 versus 46 as of Oct 31, 2026. BTI's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and momentum, while ET holds the stronger value profile. BTI also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors ET. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor BTI today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. BTI lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 3 to 14 points over 30 sessions.
Compare British American Tobacco p.l.c. and Energy Transfer LP 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 BTI and ET 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.
- Quality60 vs 28BTI +32
- Momentum80 vs 50BTI +30
- Value50 vs 58ET +8
- Risk Resilience45 vs 53ET +8
3 of 6 evidence groups favor BTI. BTI’s edge is concentrated in quality and momentum; ET keeps a meaningful value edge.
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 4 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +2, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
BTI's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — BTI and ET both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
BTI (British American Tobacco p.l.c.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and momentum.
ET (Energy Transfer LP): the counter-case, on value, risk resilience, valuation.
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
BTIBTI on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
ETET on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
ETET on the peer-relative Value factor, by 8 points.
Momentum
BTIBTI on the Momentum factor, by 30 points.
Lower downside
ETET on Risk Resilience, by 8 points.
Analyst upside
ETET on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors BTI, analyst targets favor ET. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | BTI | ET | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +10.7% | +19.6% | ET has more room |
| Target dispersion | 0% | +12% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 1 | 4 | 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 | BTI | ET |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 2.98% | 4.26% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $2.739 | $1.068 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $3.172 | $1.315 |
| Years increased | 4 | 4 |
| No cut in window | No (1) | No (1) |
| Cohort rank | not ranked | not ranked |
ET grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 4.26% a year against BTI's 2.98%. They are ranked in different cohorts — US dividend-paying corporations and master limited partnerships — so their ranks are not comparable with each other.
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
3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor BTI. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | BTI | 60 vs 46 |
| Fundamentals | BTIon balance | TTM ROE 13.4% vs 16.8%; gross margin 60.2% vs 24.1%; operating margin 37.6% vs 10.6% — BTI takes 2 of 3 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | ET | Value 50 vs 58 |
| Technicals | BTI | Price vs 50-day 9.3% vs 0.7%; vs 200-day 1.2% vs 5.5% |
| Risk Resilience | ET | Risk Resilience 45 vs 53 |
| Analyst expectations | ET | Target upside 10.7% vs 19.6% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of BTI and ET 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 wide at 14 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (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 BTI.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 29 – Oct 28BTI lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 3 to 14 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- BTI +14
- 60 vs 46
- 7 sessions ago
- BTI +15
- 60 vs 45
- 30 sessions ago
- BTI +3
- 47 vs 44
- 90 sessions ago
- Level
- 52 vs 52
The lead changed hands 8 times in this window, most recently on Sep 16 when BTI moved ahead of ET.
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, conflicted
Only BTI
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (4.98%)
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
Only ET
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (5.78%)
Both carry 1 more signal that do not separate them: MACD Bullish Crossover.
BTI 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 +0.74%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.14%, 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.
- 1ET closes the Quality gap — currently 32 points behind, the largest single contributor to BTI's edge.
- 2ET's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3BTI's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 2 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
BTI leads on balance| Metric | BTI | ET |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 0% | 23.6% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 0% | 68.6% |
| Gross margin | 60.2% | 24.1% |
| Operating margin | 37.6% | 10.6% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 13.4% | 16.8% |
| Debt to equity | 0.72 | 1.99 |
Performance
ET leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | BTI | ET |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 1.5% | 2.9% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 9.9% | 4.8% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -3.1% | 2.3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 4.1% | 4.8% |
| Year to date | 5.6% | 25.6% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 14.8% | 23.8% |
Technicals
BTI has the stronger structure| Metric | BTI | ET |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 71.1 | 51.2 |
| ADX (14) | 27.2 | 26.8 |
| Price vs 50-day | 9.3% | 0.7% |
| Price vs 200-day | 1.2% | 5.5% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 26.2% | 23.9% |
Risk
ET is the more resilient| Metric | BTI | ET |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.13 | -0.19 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.48 | 0.98 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.83 | 1.7 |
| Max drawdown | -21.1% | -10% |
| Current drawdown | -10.3% | -4.7% |
| Annualized volatility | 25.9% | 18% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.5% | -1.6% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, BTI or ET?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, BTI is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 60 against ET's 46. The edge comes from quality and momentum. ET is not without a case — it holds the better value 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 BTI or ET the better buy right now?
BTI carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 31, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 3 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 BTI over ET?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. BTI leads Quality by 32 points; BTI leads Momentum by 30 points; ET leads Value by 8 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, BTI or ET?
Analyst price targets imply +10.7% upside for BTI and +19.6% for ET, so the Street currently favors ET. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors BTI. 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, BTI or ET?
ET is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. ET on the peer-relative Value factor, by 8 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, BTI or ET?
ET 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, BTI or ET?
BTI on the Momentum factor, by 30 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, BTI or ET?
ET is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. ET on Risk Resilience, by 8 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 BTI more profitable than ET?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 60.2% vs 24.1%; operating margin 37.6% vs 10.6%; ttm roe 13.4% vs 16.8%. BTI leads on two measures and ET 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 BTI's lead over ET getting stronger or weaker?
BTI lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 3 to 14 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 8 times in that window, most recently on 2026-09-16, when BTI moved ahead of ET.
What would change the BTI vs ET verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: ET closes the Quality gap — currently 32 points behind, the largest single contributor to BTI's edge; ET's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; BTI's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 2 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 BTI and ET?
BTI: 2 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted. ET: 2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. 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 BTI is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On ET it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare BTI and ET 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.