EQNR vs EQT Stock Comparison
Compare EQNR and EQT across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between EQNR and EQT?
EQNR leads the current stock comparison as Equinor ASA, with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Equinor ASA vs EQT Corporation
EQNR leads
EQNR leads by 1 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Momentum. Wall Street currently favors EQT on target upside.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support EQNR, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Equinor ASA
EQT Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors EQNR over EQT, 59 versus 58 as of Sep 11, 2026. EQNR's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and momentum, while EQT holds the stronger risk resilience profile. EQNR also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors EQT. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor EQNR today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. EQNR lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 1 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Equinor ASA 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 EQNR 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.
- Value60 vs 44EQNR +16
- Risk Resilience42 vs 57EQT +15
- Quality56 vs 68EQT +12
- Momentum71 vs 64EQNR +7
3 of 6 evidence groups favor EQNR. EQNR’s edge is concentrated in value and momentum; EQT keeps a meaningful risk resilience 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.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
EQNR's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — EQNR and EQT both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
EQNR (Equinor ASA): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and momentum.
EQT (EQT Corporation): the counter-case, on risk resilience, quality, 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
EQNREQNR on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
EQNREQNR on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EQNREQNR on the peer-relative Value factor, by 16 points.
Momentum
EQNREQNR on the Momentum factor, by 7 points.
Lower downside
EQTEQT on Risk Resilience, by 15 points.
Analyst upside
EQTEQT on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors EQNR, analyst targets favor EQT. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | EQNR | EQT | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -18.5% | +33.2% | EQT has more room |
| Target dispersion | 0% | +2.8% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Sell | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 1 | 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
3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor EQNR. 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 | 59 vs 58 |
| Fundamentals | EQNRon balance | revenue growth 24.1% vs -46.4%; EPS growth 60.5% vs -82.3%; TTM ROE 21.6% vs 11.7%; gross margin 35.9% vs 68.4%; operating margin 29.6% vs 43.2% — EQNR takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | EQNR | Value 60 vs 44 |
| Technicals | EQNR | Price vs 50-day 13.3% vs 2.4%; vs 200-day 33.6% vs -2% |
| Risk Resilience | EQT | Risk Resilience 42 vs 57 |
| Analyst expectations | EQT | Target upside -18.5% vs 33.2% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of EQNR 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 1 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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)
- 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 EQNR.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10EQNR lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 1 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- EQNR +1
- 59 vs 58
- 7 sessions ago
- EQT +3
- 57 vs 60
- 30 sessions ago
- EQNR +1
- 58 vs 57
- 90 sessions ago
- EQT +1
- 53 vs 54
The lead changed hands 6 times in this window, most recently on Sep 9 when EQNR moved ahead of EQT.
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.
6 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (17.10%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short 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.
Price and the AIQ Score both moved down over the latest session (price -0.69%, AIQ -1 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.
- 1EQT closes the Value gap — currently 16 points behind, the largest single contributor to EQNR's edge.
- 2EQT's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3EQNR'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
EQNR leads on balance| Metric | EQNR | EQT |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 24.1% | -46.4% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 60.5% | -82.3% |
| Gross margin | 35.9% | 68.4% |
| Operating margin | 29.6% | 43.2% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 21.6% | 11.7% |
| Debt to equity | 0.75 | 0.22 |
Performance
EQNR leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | EQNR | EQT |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 3.5% | -1.4% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 10.1% | 1.7% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 20.3% | 4.5% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 34.5% | -13.9% |
| Year to date | 84.4% | 2.5% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 85.8% | 7.9% |
Technicals
EQNR has the stronger structure| Metric | EQNR | EQT |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 60.8 | 61 |
| ADX (14) | 21.5 | 20.9 |
| Price vs 50-day | 13.3% | 2.4% |
| Price vs 200-day | 33.6% | -2% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 31.6% | 17.8% |
Risk
EQT is the more resilient| Metric | EQNR | EQT |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | -0.9 | 0.1 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.7 | 0.32 |
| Sortino ratio | 2.59 | 0.53 |
| Max drawdown | -26.8% | -28.1% |
| Current drawdown | -0.3% | -19.1% |
| Annualized volatility | 38.9% | 30.5% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.6% | -3.1% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, EQNR or EQT?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, EQNR is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 59 against EQT's 58. The edge comes from value and momentum. EQT is not without a case — it holds the better risk resilience 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 EQNR or EQT the better buy right now?
EQNR carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor EQNR over EQT?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. EQNR leads Value by 16 points; EQT leads Risk Resilience by 15 points; EQT leads Quality by 12 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, EQNR or EQT?
Analyst price targets imply -18.5% upside for EQNR and +33.2% for EQT, so the Street currently favors EQT. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors EQNR. 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, EQNR or EQT?
EQNR is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. EQNR on the peer-relative Value factor, by 16 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, EQNR or EQT?
EQNR 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, EQNR or EQT?
EQNR 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, EQNR or EQT?
EQT is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. EQT on Risk Resilience, by 15 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 EQNR more profitable than EQT?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 35.9% vs 68.4%; operating margin 29.6% vs 43.2%; ttm roe 21.6% vs 11.7%. EQNR 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 EQNR's lead over EQT getting stronger or weaker?
EQNR lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 1 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 6 times in that window, most recently on 2026-09-09, when EQNR moved ahead of EQT.
What would change the EQNR vs EQT verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: EQT closes the Value gap — currently 16 points behind, the largest single contributor to EQNR's edge; EQT's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; EQNR'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 EQNR and EQT?
EQNR: 6 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. EQT: 0 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral. The most decision-relevant rule on EQNR is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On EQT it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare EQNR 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.