FANG vs MGY Stock Comparison
Compare FANG and MGY across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between FANG and MGY?
MGY leads the current stock comparison as Magnolia Oil & Gas Corporation, with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Diamondback Energy, Inc. vs Magnolia Oil & Gas Corporation
MGY leads
MGY leads by 10 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Risk Resilience.
Competitive: 4 of 6 evidence groups support MGY, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Diamondback Energy, Inc.
Magnolia Oil & Gas Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors MGY over FANG, 59 versus 49 as of Sep 11, 2026. MGY's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and risk resilience. MGY also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor MGY today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. MGY lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 10 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Diamondback Energy, Inc. and Magnolia Oil & Gas 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 FANG and MGY 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 74MGY +25
- Risk Resilience48 vs 55MGY +7
- Momentum53 vs 58MGY +5
- Value46 vs 46Even
4 of 6 evidence groups favor MGY. MGY’s edge is concentrated in quality and risk resilience.
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 +2
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum -6
No new signals fired.
MGY's lead narrowed by 2 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — FANG and MGY both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
MGY (Magnolia Oil & Gas Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and risk resilience.
FANG (Diamondback Energy, Inc.): the counter-case, on 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
MGYMGY on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
EvenGrowth figures are not covered for both names.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
MGYMGY on the Momentum factor, by 5 points.
Lower downside
MGYMGY on Risk Resilience, by 7 points.
Analyst upside
MGYMGY 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 | MGY | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +10.6% | +20.8% | MGY has more room |
| Target dispersion | +71.5% | +26.8% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 13 | 8 | 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 MGY. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | MGY | 49 vs 59 |
| Fundamentals | MGYon balance | revenue growth 31.2% vs 33.6%; EPS growth 82.1% vs 79.6%; TTM ROE 4.2% vs 21.1%; gross margin 44.5% vs 57.6%; operating margin 27.7% vs 38% — MGY takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | Even | Value 46 vs 46 |
| Technicals | FANG | Price vs 50-day 4.3% vs 6.2%; vs 200-day 13% vs 4.2% |
| Risk Resilience | MGY | Risk Resilience 48 vs 55 |
| Analyst expectations | MGY | Target upside 10.6% vs 20.8% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of FANG and MGY 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 10 points.
- The lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (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 MGY.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10MGY lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 10 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- MGY +10
- 49 vs 59
- 7 sessions ago
- MGY +12
- 48 vs 60
- 30 sessions ago
- MGY +9
- 53 vs 62
- 90 sessions ago
- MGY +8
- 44 vs 52
The lead changed hands 4 times in this window, most recently on Aug 4 when MGY 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.
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
2 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (1.75%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
MGY leads the comparison while carrying a conflicted signal state, which is one reason the stability rating is not higher.
Price vs model alignment
Whether the latest session's price move confirms what the model did over the same session, or contradicts it.
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).
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +0.18%, 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 25 points behind, the largest single contributor to MGY's edge.
- 2FANG generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover.
- 3MGY's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 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
MGY leads on balance| Metric | FANG | MGY |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 31.2% | 33.6% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 82.1% | 79.6% |
| Gross margin | 44.5% | 57.6% |
| Operating margin | 27.7% | 38% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 4.2% | 21.1% |
| Debt to equity | 0.33 | 0.18 |
Performance
FANG leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | FANG | MGY |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 1% | 1.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 2.3% | 5.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 4.5% | -0.4% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 16.3% | -4.7% |
| Year to date | 36.6% | 26.5% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 49.6% | 18.2% |
Technicals
FANG has the stronger structure| Metric | FANG | MGY |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 40.9 | 45.5 |
| ADX (14) | 12.5 | 9.7 |
| Price vs 50-day | 4.3% | 6.2% |
| Price vs 200-day | 13% | 4.2% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 22.5% | 30.1% |
Risk
MGY is the more resilient| Metric | FANG | MGY |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | -0.42 | -0.43 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.33 | 0.57 |
| Sortino ratio | 2.15 | 0.83 |
| Max drawdown | -19.5% | -27.7% |
| Current drawdown | -3.9% | -14.4% |
| Annualized volatility | 31.8% | 32.8% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.2% | -3.3% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, FANG or MGY?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, MGY is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 59 against FANG's 49. The edge comes from quality and risk resilience. 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 MGY the better buy right now?
MGY 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 MGY over FANG?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. MGY leads Quality by 25 points; MGY leads Risk Resilience by 7 points; MGY leads Momentum by 5 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, FANG or MGY?
Analyst price targets imply +10.6% upside for FANG and +20.8% for MGY, so the Street currently favors MGY. 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 MGY?
Neither name separates on the peer-relative Value factor. The two are level on Value. 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 MGY?
Growth figures are not covered for both names. 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 MGY?
MGY on the Momentum factor, by 5 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, FANG or MGY?
MGY is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. MGY on Risk Resilience, by 7 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 MGY?
MGY leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 44.5% vs 57.6%; operating margin 27.7% vs 38%; ttm roe 4.2% vs 21.1%.
Is MGY's lead over FANG getting stronger or weaker?
MGY lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 10 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 4 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-04, when MGY moved ahead of FANG.
What would change the FANG vs MGY verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: FANG closes the Quality gap — currently 25 points behind, the largest single contributor to MGY's edge; FANG generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover; MGY's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; 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 MGY?
FANG: 3 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. MGY: 2 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 FANG is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On MGY it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare FANG and MGY 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.