EPD vs USAC Stock Comparison
Compare EPD and USAC across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between EPD and USAC?
EPD leads the current stock comparison as Enterprise Products Partners L.P., with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Enterprise Products Partners L.P. vs USA Compression Partners, LP
EPD leads
EPD leads by 2 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Risk Resilience, having only recently taken the lead back from USAC. Wall Street currently favors USAC on target upside.
Fragile: 2 of 6 evidence groups support EPD, the lead recently changed hands, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Enterprise Products Partners L.P.
USA Compression Partners, LP
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors EPD over USAC, 55 versus 53 as of Sep 11, 2026. EPD's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and risk resilience, while USAC holds the stronger quality profile. EPD also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors USAC. 2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor EPD today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. EPD lead: Reversed — USAC led by 7 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; EPD now leads by 2.
Compare Enterprise Products Partners L.P. and USA Compression Partners, LP 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 EPD and USAC 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.
- Value56 vs 28EPD +28
- Quality40 vs 60USAC +20
- Risk Resilience57 vs 44EPD +13
- Momentum72 vs 79USAC +7
2 of 6 evidence groups favor EPD. EPD’s edge is concentrated in value and risk resilience; USAC keeps a meaningful quality edge.
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 -3
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum +6
New signals
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
EPD's lead narrowed by 3 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — EPD and USAC both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
EPD (Enterprise Products Partners L.P.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and risk resilience.
USAC (USA Compression Partners, LP): the counter-case, on quality, momentum, fundamentals.
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
EPDEPD on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EPDEPD on the peer-relative Value factor, by 28 points.
Momentum
USACUSAC on the Momentum factor, by 7 points.
Lower downside
EPDEPD on Risk Resilience, by 13 points.
Analyst upside
USACUSAC 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 USAC. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | EPD | USAC | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +5.4% | +8.5% | USAC has more room |
| Target dispersion | +17.1% | +6.7% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 4 | 2 | 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
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 | Even | 55 vs 53 |
| Fundamentals | USACon balance | revenue growth 27% vs 3.3%; EPS growth 23.5% vs 14.8%; TTM ROE 21.2% vs 141.2%; gross margin 13.2% vs 44.7%; operating margin 13% vs 30.1% — USAC takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | EPD | Value 56 vs 28 |
| Technicals | Even | Price vs 50-day 1.6% vs 4%; vs 200-day 8% vs 4.8% |
| Risk Resilience | EPD | Risk Resilience 57 vs 44 |
| Analyst expectations | USAC | Target upside 5.4% vs 8.5% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of EPD and USAC 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)
- 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
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10EPD lead: Reversed — USAC led by 7 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; EPD now leads by 2.
- Today
- EPD +2
- 55 vs 53
- 7 sessions ago
- EPD +5
- 54 vs 49
- 30 sessions ago
- USAC +7
- 53 vs 60
- 90 sessions ago
- USAC +3
- 51 vs 54
The lead changed hands 7 times in this window, most recently on Sep 2 when EPD moved ahead of USAC.
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.
5 bullish / 0 bearish / 2 neutral
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (5.11%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
4 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (0.26%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
USAC 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 and the AIQ Score both moved down over the latest session (price -1.09%, AIQ -1 points).
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 2 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -0.47%, 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.
- 1USAC closes the Value gap — currently 28 points behind, the largest single contributor to EPD's edge.
- 2USAC's RSI Overbought resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 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
USAC leads on balance| Metric | EPD | USAC |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 27% | 3.3% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 23.5% | 14.8% |
| Gross margin | 13.2% | 44.7% |
| Operating margin | 13% | 30.1% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 21.2% | 141.2% |
| Debt to equity | 1.12 | 10.3 |
Performance
EPD leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | EPD | USAC |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -0.1% | 1.1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 3.7% | 4.8% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 3.9% | 0.2% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 5.7% | 1.2% |
| Year to date | 22.7% | 20.7% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 24.7% | 18.9% |
Technicals
Split| Metric | EPD | USAC |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 62.4 | 74.7 |
| ADX (14) | 18.9 | 19.7 |
| Price vs 50-day | 1.6% | 4% |
| Price vs 200-day | 8% | 4.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 15.9% | 16.8% |
Risk
EPD is the more resilient| Metric | EPD | USAC |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | -0.25 | 0.13 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.12 | 0.63 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.77 | 0.99 |
| Max drawdown | -9.3% | -18.1% |
| Current drawdown | -1.2% | -8.3% |
| Annualized volatility | 17.7% | 28.4% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.6% | -2.8% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, EPD or USAC?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, EPD is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 55 against USAC's 53. The edge comes from value and risk resilience. USAC is not without a case — it holds the better quality 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 USAC the better buy right now?
EPD 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 EPD over USAC?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. EPD leads Value by 28 points; USAC leads Quality by 20 points; EPD leads Risk Resilience by 13 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, EPD or USAC?
Analyst price targets imply +5.4% upside for EPD and +8.5% for USAC, so the Street currently favors USAC. 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 USAC?
EPD is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. EPD on the peer-relative Value factor, by 28 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 USAC?
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 USAC?
USAC on the Momentum factor, by 7 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 USAC?
EPD is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. EPD on Risk Resilience, by 13 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 USAC?
USAC leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 13.2% vs 44.7%; operating margin 13% vs 30.1%; ttm roe 21.2% vs 141.2%.
Is EPD's lead over USAC getting stronger or weaker?
EPD lead: Reversed — USAC led by 7 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; EPD 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 7 times in that window, most recently on 2026-09-02, when EPD moved ahead of USAC.
What would change the EPD vs USAC verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: USAC closes the Value gap — currently 28 points behind, the largest single contributor to EPD's edge; USAC's RSI Overbought resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it; 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 USAC?
EPD: 5 bullish / 0 bearish / 2 neutral. USAC: 4 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 USAC it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare EPD and USAC 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.