FANG vs HES Stock Comparison
FANG currently leads HES in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 56 vs 54. The clearest difference is value, while HES has the stronger quality profile.
What is the main difference between FANG and HES?
FANG leads the current stock comparison as Diamondback Energy, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Diamondback Energy, Inc. vs Hess Corporation
FANG leads
FANG leads by 2 AIQ points, primarily on Value, having only recently taken the lead back from HES.
Fragile: 2 of 5 evidence groups support FANG, the lead recently changed hands, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Diamondback Energy, Inc.
Hess Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors FANG over HES, 56 versus 54 as of Oct 31, 2026. FANG's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value, while HES holds the stronger quality profile. 2 of 5 covered evidence groups favor FANG today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. FANG lead: Reversed — HES led by 13 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; FANG now leads by 2.
Compare Diamondback Energy, Inc. and Hess Corporation 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 FANG and HES 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.
- Quality49 vs 75HES +26
- Value46 vs 32FANG +14
- Risk Resilience47 vs 57HES +10
2 of 5 evidence groups favor FANG. FANG’s edge is concentrated in value; HES keeps a meaningful quality 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 -1, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session.
FANG's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — FANG and HES both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
FANG (Diamondback Energy, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value.
HES (Hess Corporation): the counter-case, on quality, risk resilience, fundamentals.
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
FANGFANG on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
FANGFANG on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
FANGFANG on the peer-relative Value factor, by 14 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
HESHES on Risk Resilience, by 10 points.
Analyst upside
FANGFANG 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 | FANG | HES | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +8.9% | +4% | FANG has more room |
| Target dispersion | +21.7% | 0% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 14 | 1 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | FANG | HES |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 21.67% | 0.00% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $1.500 | $1.000 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $4.000 | $1.000 |
| Years increased | 4 | 3 |
| No cut in window | No (1) | No (1) |
| Cohort rank | not ranked | not ranked |
FANG grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 21.67% a year against HES's 0.00%.
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
2 of 5 covered evidence groups favor FANG. 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 | 56 vs 54 |
| Fundamentals | HESon balance | revenue growth 31.2% vs 26.1%; EPS growth 82.1% vs 2.8%; TTM ROE 4.2% vs 27.4%; gross margin 44.5% vs 78.9%; operating margin 27.7% vs 37% — HES takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | FANG | Value 46 vs 32 |
| Technicals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Risk Resilience | HES | Risk Resilience 47 vs 57 |
| Analyst expectations | FANG | Target upside 8.9% vs 4% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of FANG and HES 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 5 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 FANG.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 29 – Oct 28FANG lead: Reversed — HES led by 13 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; FANG now leads by 2.
- Today
- FANG +2
- 56 vs 54
- 7 sessions ago
- FANG +2
- 56 vs 54
- 30 sessions ago
- HES +13
- 41 vs 54
- 90 sessions ago
- FANG +7
- 52 vs 45
The lead changed hands 10 times in this window, most recently on Oct 23 when FANG moved ahead of HES.
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 / 0 bearish
Only FANG
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (4.40%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
No active signals
No signal that the other name lacks.
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 +2.74%, 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.
- 1HES closes the Value gap — currently 14 points behind, the largest single contributor to FANG's edge.
- 2HES generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as Golden Cross Active or MACD Bullish Crossover.
- 3FANG'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
HES leads on balance| Metric | FANG | HES |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 31.2% | 26.1% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 82.1% | 2.8% |
| Gross margin | 44.5% | 78.9% |
| Operating margin | 27.7% | 37% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 4.2% | 27.4% |
| Debt to equity | 0.33 | 0.84 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | FANG | HES |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 2.6% | — |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 12.2% | — |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 3.2% | — |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 0.4% | — |
| Year to date | 37.2% | — |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 41.4% | — |
Technicals
Split| Metric | FANG | HES |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 68.8 | — |
| ADX (14) | 16.5 | — |
| Price vs 50-day | 7.4% | — |
| Price vs 200-day | 9.1% | — |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 28.4% | — |
Risk
HES is the more resilient| Metric | FANG | HES |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | -0.52 | — |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.21 | — |
| Sortino ratio | 1.85 | — |
| Max drawdown | -19.5% | — |
| Current drawdown | -3.5% | — |
| Annualized volatility | 32.7% | — |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.2% | — |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, FANG or HES?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, FANG is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 56 against HES's 54. The edge comes from value. HES 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 FANG or HES the better buy right now?
FANG carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 31, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 2 of 5 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 FANG over HES?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. HES leads Quality by 26 points; FANG leads Value by 14 points; HES leads Risk Resilience by 10 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, FANG or HES?
Analyst price targets imply +8.9% upside for FANG and +4% for HES, so the Street currently favors FANG. 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, FANG or HES?
FANG is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. FANG on the peer-relative Value factor, by 14 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, FANG or HES?
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, FANG or HES?
The two are level on Momentum. 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, FANG or HES?
HES is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. HES on Risk Resilience, by 10 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 FANG more profitable than HES?
HES leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 44.5% vs 78.9%; operating margin 27.7% vs 37%; ttm roe 4.2% vs 27.4%.
Is FANG's lead over HES getting stronger or weaker?
FANG lead: Reversed — HES led by 13 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; FANG now leads by 2. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-29 and 2026-10-28. The lead has changed hands 10 times in that window, most recently on 2026-10-23, when FANG moved ahead of HES.
What would change the FANG vs HES verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: HES closes the Value gap — currently 14 points behind, the largest single contributor to FANG's edge; HES generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as Golden Cross Active or MACD Bullish Crossover; FANG'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 FANG and HES?
FANG: 4 bullish / 0 bearish. HES: No active signals. The most decision-relevant rule on FANG is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare FANG and HES 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.