EPD vs ET Stock Comparison
EPD currently leads ET in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 50 vs 45. The clearest difference is quality.
What is the main difference between EPD and ET?
EPD leads the current stock comparison as Enterprise Products Partners L.P., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Enterprise Products Partners L.P. vs Energy Transfer LP
EPD leads
EPD leads by 5 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Momentum, and the lead has widened from 1 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors ET on target upside.
Competitive: 2 of 6 evidence groups support EPD, its lead is widening, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Enterprise Products Partners L.P.
Energy Transfer LP
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors EPD over ET, 50 versus 45 as of Oct 22, 2026. EPD's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and momentum. EPD also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors ET. 2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor EPD today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 5 points. EPD lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 1 to 5 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Enterprise Products Partners L.P. 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 EPD 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.
- Quality40 vs 28EPD +12
- Momentum53 vs 45EPD +8
- Value56 vs 58Even
- Risk Resilience53 vs 55Even
2 of 6 evidence groups favor EPD. EPD’s edge is concentrated in quality and momentum.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-20, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-19.
Largest factor move: Momentum +5
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum -6
New signals
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
EPD's lead widened by 3 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — EPD and ET both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
EPD (Enterprise Products Partners L.P.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and momentum.
ET (Energy Transfer LP): the counter-case, on technicals, 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
EPDEPD on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
ETET on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
EPDEPD on the Momentum factor, by 8 points.
Lower downside
ETET carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
ETET on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors EPD, analyst targets favor ET. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | EPD | ET | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +12.4% | +24.2% | ET has more room |
| Target dispersion | +17% | +12% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 6 | 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 | EPD | ET |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 3.95% | 4.26% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $1.780 | $1.068 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $2.160 | $1.315 |
| Years increased | 5 | 4 |
| No cut in window | Yes | No (1) |
| Cohort rank | #1 | not ranked |
ET grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 4.26% a year against EPD's 3.95%. EPD never reduced its regular dividend in the window; ET did in 1 year.
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
2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor EPD. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | EPD | 50 vs 45 |
| Fundamentals | EPDon balance | revenue growth 27% vs 23.6%; EPS growth 23.5% vs 68.6%; TTM ROE 21.2% vs 16.8%; gross margin 13.2% vs 24.1%; operating margin 13% vs 10.6% — EPD takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | Even | Value 56 vs 58 |
| Technicals | ET | Price vs 50-day -3.2% vs -3.4%; vs 200-day -0.3% vs 2.1% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 53 vs 55 |
| Analyst expectations | ET | Target upside 12.4% vs 24.2% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of EPD 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 narrow at 5 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's signal state is cleanly positive. (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 EPD.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20EPD lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 1 to 5 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- EPD +5
- 50 vs 45
- 7 sessions ago
- Level
- 45 vs 45
- 30 sessions ago
- EPD +1
- 43 vs 42
- 90 sessions ago
- Level
- 53 vs 53
The lead changed hands 9 times in this window, most recently on Oct 8 when ET moved ahead of EPD.
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 / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
Only EPD
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
2 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only ET
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: Bollinger Band Squeeze, Golden Cross Active.
ET is conflicted, so the timing case there is weaker than the score alone suggests.
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 down while the AIQ Score moved up 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -1.05%, AIQ +1 points).
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 2 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +2.97%, 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.
- 1ET closes the Quality gap — currently 12 points behind, the largest single contributor to EPD's edge.
- 2ET's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3EPD's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict.
- 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
EPD leads on balance| Metric | EPD | ET |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 27% | 23.6% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 23.5% | 68.6% |
| Gross margin | 13.2% | 24.1% |
| Operating margin | 13% | 10.6% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 21.2% | 16.8% |
| Debt to equity | 1.12 | 1.99 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | EPD | ET |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 2.6% | -4.4% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -2.7% | -4.2% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -4.9% | -4% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -0.6% | 3.1% |
| Year to date | 15.3% | 18.6% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 22.2% | 17.2% |
Technicals
ET has the stronger structure| Metric | EPD | ET |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 63.6 | 46.7 |
| ADX (14) | 23 | 28.9 |
| Price vs 50-day | -3.2% | -3.4% |
| Price vs 200-day | -0.3% | 2.1% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 20.8% | 19.8% |
Risk
Split| Metric | EPD | ET |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | -0.29 | -0.18 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.98 | 0.85 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.62 | 1.45 |
| Max drawdown | -10.6% | -10% |
| Current drawdown | -7.1% | -10% |
| Annualized volatility | 18.5% | 17.7% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.7% | -1.6% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, EPD or ET?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, EPD is the stronger of the two as of Oct 22, 2026, scoring 50 against ET's 45. The edge comes from quality and momentum. 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 EPD or ET the better buy right now?
EPD carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 22, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 2 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 EPD over ET?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. EPD leads Quality by 12 points; EPD leads Momentum by 8 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, EPD or ET?
Analyst price targets imply +12.4% upside for EPD and +24.2% for ET, so the Street currently favors ET. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors EPD. 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, EPD or ET?
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, EPD 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, EPD or ET?
EPD on the Momentum factor, by 8 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, EPD or ET?
ET is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. ET 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 EPD more profitable than ET?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 13.2% vs 24.1%; operating margin 13% vs 10.6%; ttm roe 21.2% vs 16.8%. EPD 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 EPD's lead over ET getting stronger or weaker?
EPD lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 1 to 5 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has changed hands 9 times in that window, most recently on 2026-10-08, when ET moved ahead of EPD.
What would change the EPD 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 12 points behind, the largest single contributor to EPD's edge; ET's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; EPD's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict; 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 EPD and ET?
EPD: 2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. ET: 2 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 EPD is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On ET it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare EPD 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.