DVN vs EQT Stock Comparison
Compare DVN and EQT across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between DVN and EQT?
EQT leads the current stock comparison as EQT Corporation, with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Devon Energy Corporation vs EQT Corporation
EQT leads
EQT leads by 2 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Risk Resilience, having only recently taken the lead back from DVN.
Fragile: 2 of 6 evidence groups support EQT, and the lead recently changed hands.
Devon Energy Corporation
EQT Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors EQT over DVN, 58 versus 56 as of Sep 11, 2026. EQT's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and risk resilience, while DVN holds the stronger value profile. EQT also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor EQT today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. EQT lead: Reversed — DVN led by 4 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; EQT now leads by 2.
Compare Devon Energy Corporation and EQT 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 DVN and EQT 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.
- Quality56 vs 68EQT +12
- Value52 vs 44DVN +8
- Risk Resilience50 vs 57EQT +7
- Momentum66 vs 64Even
2 of 6 evidence groups favor EQT. EQT’s edge is concentrated in quality and risk resilience; DVN keeps a meaningful value edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-10, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-09.
No factor moved materially.
New signals
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
EQT's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — DVN and EQT both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
EQT (EQT Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and risk resilience.
DVN (Devon Energy Corporation): the counter-case, on value, fundamentals, valuation — but at materially higher volatility, 26.6% against 17.8%.
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
EQTEQT on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
DVNDVN on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
DVNDVN on the peer-relative Value factor, by 8 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
EQTEQT on Risk Resilience, by 7 points.
Analyst upside
EQTEQT on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
Where the systematic read and the analyst consensus line up — and where they do not.
| Measure | DVN | EQT | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +23.8% | +33.2% | EQT has more room |
| Target dispersion | +29% | +2.8% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 14 | 2 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor EQT. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | Even | 56 vs 58 |
| Fundamentals | DVNon balance | revenue growth 94.8% vs -46.4%; EPS growth 9.7% vs -82.3%; TTM ROE 14.9% vs 11.7%; gross margin 34% vs 68.4%; operating margin 23.9% vs 43.2% — DVN takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | DVN | Value 52 vs 44 |
| Technicals | DVN | Price vs 50-day 11% vs 2.4%; vs 200-day 14.4% vs -2% |
| Risk Resilience | EQT | Risk Resilience 50 vs 57 |
| Analyst expectations | EQT | Target upside 23.8% vs 33.2% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of DVN and EQT 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 2 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Signal direction runs against the verdict: the leader is net-bearish while the laggard is net-bullish. (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 EQT.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10EQT lead: Reversed — DVN led by 4 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; EQT now leads by 2.
- Today
- EQT +2
- 56 vs 58
- 7 sessions ago
- EQT +4
- 56 vs 60
- 30 sessions ago
- DVN +4
- 61 vs 57
- 90 sessions ago
- EQT +2
- 52 vs 54
The lead changed hands 5 times in this window, most recently on Sep 4 when EQT moved ahead of DVN.
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.
4 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (3.51%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
0 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (6.25%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
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 +0.42%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -1.62%, 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.
- 1DVN closes the Quality gap — currently 12 points behind, the largest single contributor to EQT's edge.
- 2DVN's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3EQT 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
DVN leads on balance| Metric | DVN | EQT |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 94.8% | -46.4% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 9.7% | -82.3% |
| Gross margin | 34% | 68.4% |
| Operating margin | 23.9% | 43.2% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 14.9% | 11.7% |
| Debt to equity | 0.28 | 0.22 |
Performance
DVN leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | DVN | EQT |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 2% | -1.4% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 11.5% | 1.7% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 7.3% | 4.5% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 10.3% | -13.9% |
| Year to date | 36.6% | 2.5% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 44.9% | 7.9% |
Technicals
DVN has the stronger structure| Metric | DVN | EQT |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 54.7 | 61 |
| ADX (14) | 15.5 | 20.9 |
| Price vs 50-day | 11% | 2.4% |
| Price vs 200-day | 14.4% | -2% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 26.6% | 17.8% |
Risk
EQT is the more resilient| Metric | DVN | EQT |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | -0.58 | 0.1 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.15 | 0.32 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.72 | 0.53 |
| Max drawdown | -22.7% | -28.1% |
| Current drawdown | -3.9% | -19.1% |
| Annualized volatility | 34.8% | 30.5% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.7% | -3.1% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, DVN or EQT?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, EQT is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 58 against DVN's 56. The edge comes from quality and risk resilience. DVN 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 DVN or EQT the better buy right now?
EQT carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor EQT over DVN?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. EQT leads Quality by 12 points; DVN leads Value by 8 points; EQT leads Risk Resilience by 7 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, DVN or EQT?
Analyst price targets imply +23.8% upside for DVN and +33.2% for EQT, so the Street currently favors EQT. The model and the Street agree here, which is a broader base of evidence than either alone. Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions, and dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Which is better value, DVN or EQT?
DVN is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. DVN 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, DVN or EQT?
DVN 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, DVN or EQT?
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, DVN or EQT?
EQT is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. EQT on Risk Resilience, by 7 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 DVN more profitable than EQT?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 34% vs 68.4%; operating margin 23.9% vs 43.2%; ttm roe 14.9% vs 11.7%. DVN leads on one measure and EQT on two measures, 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 EQT's lead over DVN getting stronger or weaker?
EQT lead: Reversed — DVN led by 4 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; EQT now leads by 2. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has changed hands 5 times in that window, most recently on 2026-09-04, when EQT moved ahead of DVN.
What would change the DVN vs EQT verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: DVN closes the Quality gap — currently 12 points behind, the largest single contributor to EQT's edge; DVN's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; EQT 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 DVN and EQT?
DVN: 4 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. EQT: 0 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral. The most decision-relevant rule on DVN is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On EQT it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare DVN and EQT 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.