EQNR vs EXE Stock Comparison
Compare EQNR and EXE across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between EQNR and EXE?
EXE leads the current stock comparison as Expand Energy Corporation, with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Equinor ASA vs Expand Energy Corporation
EXE leads
EXE leads by 1 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Risk Resilience.
Fragile: 2 of 6 evidence groups support EXE.
Equinor ASA
Expand Energy Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors EXE over EQNR, 60 versus 59 as of Sep 11, 2026. EXE's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and risk resilience, while EQNR holds the stronger momentum profile. EXE also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor EXE today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. EXE lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 1 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Equinor ASA and Expand Energy 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 EXE 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 70EXE +14
- Momentum71 vs 57EQNR +14
- Risk Resilience42 vs 54EXE +12
- Value60 vs 56EQNR +4
2 of 6 evidence groups favor EXE. EXE’s edge is concentrated in quality and risk resilience; EQNR keeps a meaningful momentum 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.
EXE's lead widened by 1 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — EQNR and EXE both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
EXE (Expand Energy Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and risk resilience.
EQNR (Equinor ASA): the counter-case, on momentum, value, fundamentals — but at materially higher volatility, 31.6% against 18.7%.
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
EXEEXE 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 4 points.
Momentum
EQNREQNR on the Momentum factor, by 14 points.
Lower downside
EXEEXE on Risk Resilience, by 12 points.
Analyst upside
EXEEXE 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 | EQNR | EXE | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -18.5% | +28.3% | EXE has more room |
| Target dispersion | 0% | +39.5% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Sell | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 1 | 8 | 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 EXE. 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 60 |
| Fundamentals | EQNRon balance | revenue growth 24.1% vs -32.7%; EPS growth 60.5% vs -54.7%; TTM ROE 21.6% vs 14.7%; gross margin 35.9% vs 63.1%; operating margin 29.6% vs 26% — EQNR takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | EQNR | Value 60 vs 56 |
| Technicals | EQNR | Price vs 50-day 13.3% vs 1.6%; vs 200-day 33.6% vs -3.9% |
| Risk Resilience | EXE | Risk Resilience 42 vs 54 |
| Analyst expectations | EXE | Target upside -18.5% vs 28.3% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of EQNR and EXE 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 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 EXE.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10EXE lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 1 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- EXE +1
- 59 vs 60
- 7 sessions ago
- EXE +6
- 57 vs 63
- 30 sessions ago
- EXE +3
- 58 vs 61
- 90 sessions ago
- EXE +5
- 53 vs 58
The lead changed hands 6 times in this window, most recently on Sep 1 when EXE moved ahead of EQNR.
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 (8.00%)
- 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 -2.11%, 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.
- 1EQNR closes the Quality gap — currently 14 points behind, the largest single contributor to EXE's edge.
- 2EQNR's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3EXE 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
EQNR leads on balance| Metric | EQNR | EXE |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 24.1% | -32.7% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 60.5% | -54.7% |
| Gross margin | 35.9% | 63.1% |
| Operating margin | 29.6% | 26% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 21.6% | 14.7% |
| Debt to equity | 0.75 | 0.19 |
Performance
EQNR leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | EQNR | EXE |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 3.5% | -2.5% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 10.1% | 0.6% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 20.3% | 9.4% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 34.5% | -10.8% |
| Year to date | 84.4% | -12.2% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 85.8% | 2.5% |
Technicals
EQNR has the stronger structure| Metric | EQNR | EXE |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 60.8 | 53.5 |
| ADX (14) | 21.5 | 13.5 |
| Price vs 50-day | 13.3% | 1.6% |
| Price vs 200-day | 33.6% | -3.9% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 31.6% | 18.7% |
Risk
EXE is the more resilient| Metric | EQNR | EXE |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | -0.9 | -0.01 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.7 | 0.1 |
| Sortino ratio | 2.59 | 0.17 |
| Max drawdown | -26.8% | -29.3% |
| Current drawdown | -0.3% | -21.2% |
| Annualized volatility | 38.9% | 30.9% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.6% | -2.9% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, EQNR or EXE?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, EXE is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 60 against EQNR's 59. The edge comes from quality and risk resilience. EQNR is not without a case — it holds the better momentum 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 EXE the better buy right now?
EXE 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 1 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor EXE over EQNR?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. EXE leads Quality by 14 points; EQNR leads Momentum by 14 points; EXE leads Risk Resilience by 12 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, EQNR or EXE?
Analyst price targets imply -18.5% upside for EQNR and +28.3% for EXE, so the Street currently favors EXE. 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, EQNR or EXE?
EQNR is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. EQNR 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, EQNR or EXE?
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 EXE?
EQNR on the Momentum factor, by 14 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 EXE?
EXE is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. EXE on Risk Resilience, by 12 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 EXE?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 35.9% vs 63.1%; operating margin 29.6% vs 26%; ttm roe 21.6% vs 14.7%. EQNR leads on two measures and EXE 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 EXE's lead over EQNR getting stronger or weaker?
EXE 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 2026-09-01, when EXE moved ahead of EQNR.
What would change the EQNR vs EXE verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: EQNR closes the Quality gap — currently 14 points behind, the largest single contributor to EXE's edge; EQNR's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; EXE 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 EQNR and EXE?
EQNR: 6 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. EXE: 0 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral. The most decision-relevant rule on EQNR is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On EXE it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare EQNR and EXE 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.