EXE vs FANG Stock Comparison
Compare EXE and FANG across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between EXE and FANG?
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
Expand Energy Corporation vs Diamondback Energy, Inc.
EXE leads
EXE leads by 11 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Value, and the lead has widened from 8 points over 30 sessions.
Competitive: 4 of 6 evidence groups support EXE, and its lead is widening.
Expand Energy Corporation
Diamondback Energy, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors EXE over FANG, 60 versus 49 as of Sep 11, 2026. EXE's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and value. EXE also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor EXE today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: signal direction runs against the verdict: the leader is net-bearish while the laggard is net-bullish. EXE lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 8 to 11 points over 30 sessions. EXE leads on all four AIQ factor dimensions. Value is itself one of those four, so a sweep is not explained by valuation alone — it deserves additional scrutiny for unmodeled catalysts, expectations or event risk.
Compare Expand Energy Corporation and Diamondback Energy, Inc. 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 EXE and FANG 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.
- Quality70 vs 49EXE +21
- Value56 vs 46EXE +10
- Risk Resilience54 vs 48EXE +6
- Momentum57 vs 53EXE +4
4 of 6 evidence groups favor EXE. EXE’s edge is concentrated in quality and value.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-10, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-09.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum +2
No new signals fired.
EXE's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — EXE and FANG both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
EXE (Expand Energy Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and value.
FANG (Diamondback Energy, Inc.): the counter-case, on fundamentals, technicals.
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
FANGFANG on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EXEEXE on the peer-relative Value factor, by 10 points.
Momentum
EXEEXE on the Momentum factor, by 4 points.
Lower downside
EXEEXE on Risk Resilience, by 6 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 | EXE | FANG | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +28.3% | +10.6% | EXE has more room |
| Target dispersion | +39.5% | +71.5% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 8 | 13 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
4 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 | EXE | 60 vs 49 |
| Fundamentals | FANGon balance | revenue growth -32.7% vs 31.2%; EPS growth -54.7% vs 82.1%; TTM ROE 14.7% vs 4.2%; gross margin 63.1% vs 44.5%; operating margin 26% vs 27.7% — FANG takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | EXE | Value 56 vs 46 |
| Technicals | FANG | Price vs 50-day 1.6% vs 4.3%; vs 200-day -3.9% vs 13% |
| Risk Resilience | EXE | Risk Resilience 54 vs 48 |
| Analyst expectations | EXE | Target upside 28.3% vs 10.6% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of EXE and FANG 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 moderate at 11 points.
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (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: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 8 to 11 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- EXE +11
- 60 vs 49
- 7 sessions ago
- EXE +15
- 63 vs 48
- 30 sessions ago
- EXE +8
- 61 vs 53
- 90 sessions ago
- EXE +14
- 58 vs 44
The lead changed hands once in this window, most recently on Jul 22 when EXE moved ahead of FANG.
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.
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
3 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (8.20%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
FANG 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.
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).
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -0.2%, 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.
- 1FANG closes the Quality gap — currently 21 points behind, the largest single contributor to EXE's edge.
- 2FANG generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover.
- 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
FANG leads on balance| Metric | EXE | FANG |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -32.7% | 31.2% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -54.7% | 82.1% |
| Gross margin | 63.1% | 44.5% |
| Operating margin | 26% | 27.7% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 14.7% | 4.2% |
| Debt to equity | 0.19 | 0.33 |
Performance
FANG leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | EXE | FANG |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -2.5% | 1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 0.6% | 2.3% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 9.4% | 4.5% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -10.8% | 16.3% |
| Year to date | -12.2% | 36.6% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 2.5% | 49.6% |
Technicals
FANG has the stronger structure| Metric | EXE | FANG |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 53.5 | 40.9 |
| ADX (14) | 13.5 | 12.5 |
| Price vs 50-day | 1.6% | 4.3% |
| Price vs 200-day | -3.9% | 13% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 18.7% | 22.5% |
Risk
EXE is the more resilient| Metric | EXE | FANG |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | -0.01 | -0.42 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.1 | 1.33 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.17 | 2.15 |
| Max drawdown | -29.3% | -19.5% |
| Current drawdown | -21.2% | -3.9% |
| Annualized volatility | 30.9% | 31.8% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.9% | -3.2% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, EXE or FANG?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, EXE is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 60 against FANG's 49. The edge comes from quality and value. 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 EXE or FANG the better buy right now?
EXE carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 4 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 EXE over FANG?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. EXE leads Quality by 21 points; EXE leads Value by 10 points; EXE leads Risk Resilience by 6 points. EXE leads on all four AIQ factor dimensions. Value is itself one of those four, so the sweep is not explained by FANG simply being cheaper — it warrants extra scrutiny for unmodeled catalysts, forward expectations or event risk the factors do not capture.
Which has more analyst upside, EXE or FANG?
Analyst price targets imply +28.3% upside for EXE and +10.6% for FANG, 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, EXE or FANG?
EXE is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. EXE on the peer-relative Value factor, by 10 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, EXE or FANG?
FANG 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, EXE or FANG?
EXE on the Momentum factor, by 4 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, EXE or FANG?
EXE is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. EXE on Risk Resilience, by 6 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 EXE more profitable than FANG?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 63.1% vs 44.5%; operating margin 26% vs 27.7%; ttm roe 14.7% vs 4.2%. EXE leads on two measures and FANG 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 FANG getting stronger or weaker?
EXE lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 8 to 11 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 once in that window, most recently on 2026-07-22, when EXE moved ahead of FANG.
What would change the EXE vs FANG verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: FANG closes the Quality gap — currently 21 points behind, the largest single contributor to EXE's edge; FANG generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover; 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 EXE and FANG?
EXE: 0 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral. FANG: 3 bullish / 1 bearish, 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 EXE is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On FANG it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare EXE and FANG 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.