CNX vs CTRA Stock Comparison
Compare CNX and CTRA across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between CNX and CTRA?
CNX leads the current stock comparison as CNX Resources Corporation, with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
CNX Resources Corporation vs Coterra Energy Inc.
CNX leads
CNX leads by 8 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Value. Wall Street currently favors CTRA on target upside.
Competitive: 3 of 6 evidence groups support CNX.
CNX Resources Corporation
Coterra Energy Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors CNX over CTRA, 57 versus 49 as of Sep 11, 2026. CNX's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and value. CNX also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors CTRA. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor CNX today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. CNX lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 8 points over 30 sessions.
Compare CNX Resources Corporation and Coterra Energy Inc. 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 CNX and CTRA 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.
- Quality66 vs 55CNX +11
- Value52 vs 42CNX +10
- Risk Resilience52 vs 52Even
3 of 6 evidence groups favor CNX. CNX’s edge is concentrated in quality and value.
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 -8
New signals
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
CNX's lead narrowed by 2 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CNX and CTRA both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
CNX (CNX Resources Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and value.
CTRA (Coterra Energy Inc.): the counter-case, on technicals, analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 44.4% against 17.6%.
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
CNXCNX on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
CTRACTRA on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
CNXCNX on the peer-relative Value factor, by 10 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
CNXCNX carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
CTRACTRA on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors CNX, analyst targets favor CTRA. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | CNX | CTRA | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +3% | +29% | CTRA has more room |
| Target dispersion | +21.6% | 0% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 3 | 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
3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor CNX. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | CNX | 57 vs 49 |
| Fundamentals | CNXon balance | EPS growth -46.7% vs 27.1%; TTM ROE 21.2% vs 11.3%; gross margin 49.9% vs 39%; operating margin 42.2% vs 31.1% — CNX takes 3 of 4 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | CNX | Value 52 vs 42 |
| Technicals | CTRA | Price vs 50-day 2.5% vs -1.7%; vs 200-day -1% vs 18.8% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 52 vs 52 |
| Analyst expectations | CTRA | Target upside 3% vs 29% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of CNX and CTRA 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 8 points.
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
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 CNX.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10CNX lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 8 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- CNX +8
- 57 vs 49
- 7 sessions ago
- CNX +14
- 63 vs 49
- 30 sessions ago
- CNX +10
- 59 vs 49
- 90 sessions ago
- CNX +5
- 54 vs 49
The lead changed hands once in this window, most recently on May 6 when CNX moved ahead of CTRA.
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.
0 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (5.68%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
No active signals
Price vs model alignment
Whether the latest session's price move confirms what the model did over the same session, or contradicts it.
Price and the AIQ Score both moved down over the latest session (price -2.07%, 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.
- 1CTRA closes the Quality gap — currently 11 points behind, the largest single contributor to CNX's edge.
- 2CTRA generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as Golden Cross Active or MACD Bullish Crossover.
- 3CNX starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals.
- 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
CNX leads on balance| Metric | CNX | CTRA |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -21% | -0.6% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -46.7% | 27.1% |
| Gross margin | 49.9% | 39% |
| Operating margin | 42.2% | 31.1% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 21.2% | 11.3% |
| Debt to equity | 0.49 | 0.23 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | CNX | CTRA |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -2.4% | -8.7% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 2.6% | -2.7% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 10.5% | 6.8% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -10% | 33.5% |
| Year to date | -0.3% | 23.7% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 26.4% | 26.8% |
Technicals
CTRA has the stronger structure| Metric | CNX | CTRA |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 52.9 | 52.8 |
| ADX (14) | 22.6 | 19.2 |
| Price vs 50-day | 2.5% | -1.7% |
| Price vs 200-day | -1% | 18.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 17.6% | 44.4% |
Risk
Split| Metric | CNX | CTRA |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | -0.08 | -0.48 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.81 | 1.33 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.36 | 1.8 |
| Max drawdown | -24.9% | -14.9% |
| Current drawdown | -13.9% | -10.3% |
| Annualized volatility | 28.8% | 30.4% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.9% | -3.3% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, CNX or CTRA?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, CNX is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 57 against CTRA's 49. The edge comes from quality and value. 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 CNX or CTRA the better buy right now?
CNX carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 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 CNX over CTRA?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. CNX leads Quality by 11 points; CNX leads Value by 10 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, CNX or CTRA?
Analyst price targets imply +3% upside for CNX and +29% for CTRA, so the Street currently favors CTRA. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors CNX. 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, CNX or CTRA?
CNX is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. CNX on the peer-relative Value factor, by 10 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, CNX or CTRA?
CTRA 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, CNX or CTRA?
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, CNX or CTRA?
CNX is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. CNX carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility. Risk Resilience is a weighted factor in the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is CNX more profitable than CTRA?
CNX leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 49.9% vs 39%; operating margin 42.2% vs 31.1%; ttm roe 21.2% vs 11.3%.
Is CNX's lead over CTRA getting stronger or weaker?
CNX lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 8 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has changed hands once in that window, most recently on 2026-05-06, when CNX moved ahead of CTRA.
What would change the CNX vs CTRA verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: CTRA closes the Quality gap — currently 11 points behind, the largest single contributor to CNX's edge; CTRA generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as Golden Cross Active or MACD Bullish Crossover; CNX starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals; 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 CNX and CTRA?
CNX: 0 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral. CTRA: No active signals. The most decision-relevant rule on CNX is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare CNX and CTRA 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.