EPD vs GIS Stock Comparison
EPD currently leads GIS in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 55 vs 39. The clearest difference is momentum, while GIS has the stronger value profile.
What is the main difference between EPD and GIS?
EPD leads the current stock comparison as Enterprise Products Partners L.P., with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Enterprise Products Partners L.P. vs General Mills, Inc.
EPD leads
EPD leads by 16 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Risk Resilience, and the lead has widened from 12 points over 30 sessions.
Stable: 4 of 6 evidence groups support EPD, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Enterprise Products Partners L.P.
General Mills, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors EPD over GIS, 55 versus 39 as of Oct 31, 2026. EPD's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and risk resilience, while GIS holds the stronger value profile. EPD also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor EPD today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. EPD lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 12 to 16 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Enterprise Products Partners L.P. and General Mills, Inc. 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 GIS 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.
- Momentum73 vs 45EPD +28
- Risk Resilience54 vs 28EPD +26
- Quality40 vs 17EPD +23
- Value56 vs 60GIS +4
4 of 6 evidence groups favor EPD. EPD’s edge is concentrated in momentum and risk resilience; GIS 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.
Largest factor move: Momentum +28
New signals
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum -5
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
EPD's lead widened by 8 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — EPD and GIS both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
EPD (Enterprise Products Partners L.P.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and risk resilience.
GIS (General Mills, Inc.): the counter-case, on value, valuation — but at materially higher volatility, 40.4% against 20.6%.
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
EPDEPD on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
GISGIS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 4 points.
Momentum
EPDEPD on the Momentum factor, by 28 points.
Lower downside
EPDEPD on Risk Resilience, by 26 points.
Analyst upside
EPDEPD 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 | EPD | GIS | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +7.8% | +1.7% | EPD has more room |
| Target dispersion | +17% | +37.3% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 6 | 11 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | EPD | GIS |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 3.95% | 4.09% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $1.780 | $1.980 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $2.160 | $2.420 |
| Years increased | 5 | 5 |
| No cut in window | Yes | Yes |
| Cohort rank | #1 | #284 |
GIS grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 4.09% a year against EPD's 3.95%. Neither company reduced its regular dividend in any year of the window. They are ranked in different cohorts — master limited partnerships and US dividend-paying corporations — 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
4 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 | 55 vs 39 |
| Fundamentals | Even | revenue growth 27% vs 3.9%; EPS growth 23.5% vs -7.6%; gross margin 13.2% vs 33.4%; operating margin 13% vs 20% |
| Valuation | GIS | Value 56 vs 60 |
| Technicals | EPD | Price vs 50-day 1.4% vs -3.8%; vs 200-day 2.2% vs -12.1% |
| Risk Resilience | EPD | Risk Resilience 54 vs 28 |
| Analyst expectations | EPD | Target upside 7.8% vs 1.7% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of EPD and GIS and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion rests on a wide gap and broad agreement. It is unlikely to turn on a single session.
- The AIQ gap is wide at 16 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 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 EPD.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 29 – Oct 28EPD lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 12 to 16 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- EPD +16
- 55 vs 39
- 7 sessions ago
- EPD +8
- 48 vs 40
- 30 sessions ago
- EPD +12
- 46 vs 34
- 90 sessions ago
- EPD +9
- 55 vs 46
The lead has not changed hands in this window.
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 / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only EPD
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (1.04%)
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only GIS
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (5.53%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: Bollinger Band Squeeze, MACD Bullish Crossover.
EPD 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 down while the AIQ Score moved up 7 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -2.3%, AIQ +7 points).
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +2.91%, AIQ -1 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.
- 1GIS closes the Momentum gap — currently 28 points behind, the largest single contributor to EPD's edge.
- 2GIS's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3EPD's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 4 bullish and 1 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
Split| Metric | EPD | GIS |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 27% | 3.9% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 23.5% | -7.6% |
| Gross margin | 13.2% | 33.4% |
| Operating margin | 13% | 20% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 21.2% | -1% |
| Debt to equity | 1.12 | 1.84 |
Performance
EPD leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | EPD | GIS |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 4% | 1.5% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 6.9% | 2.8% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -0.2% | -9.3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -1.9% | -4.1% |
| Year to date | 18.7% | -28.9% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 22.8% | -30.3% |
Technicals
EPD has the stronger structure| Metric | EPD | GIS |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 63 | 52.3 |
| ADX (14) | 17.5 | 25.5 |
| Price vs 50-day | 1.4% | -3.8% |
| Price vs 200-day | 2.2% | -12.1% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 20.6% | 40.4% |
Risk
EPD is the more resilient| Metric | EPD | GIS |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | -0.3 | -0.39 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.95 | -1.23 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.58 | -1.93 |
| Max drawdown | -10.6% | -35.4% |
| Current drawdown | -4.4% | -32.6% |
| Annualized volatility | 18.7% | 30.2% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.7% | -3.1% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, EPD or GIS?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, EPD is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 55 against GIS's 39. The edge comes from momentum and risk resilience. GIS 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 EPD or GIS the better buy right now?
EPD carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 31, 2026, and the comparison is rated Stable — 4 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Stable rating means the gap is wide and the evidence is broad, so the conclusion is unlikely to turn on a single session.
Why does the AIQ Score favor EPD over GIS?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. EPD leads Momentum by 28 points; EPD leads Risk Resilience by 26 points; EPD leads Quality by 23 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, EPD or GIS?
Analyst price targets imply +7.8% upside for EPD and +1.7% for GIS, so the Street currently favors EPD. 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, EPD or GIS?
GIS is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. GIS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 4 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, EPD or GIS?
EPD 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 GIS?
EPD on the Momentum factor, by 28 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 GIS?
EPD is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. EPD on Risk Resilience, by 26 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 EPD more profitable than GIS?
GIS leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 13.2% vs 33.4%; operating margin 13% vs 20%; ttm roe 21.2% vs -1%.
Is EPD's lead over GIS getting stronger or weaker?
EPD lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 12 to 16 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-29 and 2026-10-28. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the EPD vs GIS verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: GIS closes the Momentum gap — currently 28 points behind, the largest single contributor to EPD's edge; GIS's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; EPD's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 4 bullish and 1 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 EPD and GIS?
EPD: 4 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. GIS: 1 bullish / 2 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 GIS it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare EPD and GIS 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.