FANG vs MTDR Stock Comparison
Compare FANG vs MTDR on performance, valuation, growth, fundamentals, momentum and risk; the current AIQ evidence does not show a clear headline leader.
What is the main difference between FANG and MTDR?
FANG and MTDR are close on the current AIQ evidence, so the better fit depends more on objective, risk tolerance and valuation preference than on a single headline score.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Diamondback Energy, Inc. vs Matador Resources Company
FANG and MTDR are effectively level
FANG and MTDR are effectively level on the AIQ Score; the factor table below shows where each one holds its advantage.
Diamondback Energy, Inc.
Matador Resources Company
The Algovestiq AIQ Score does not currently separate FANG and MTDR as of Oct 31, 2026. Both names are scored on the same 0–100 scale across Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience, and the factor table below shows where each one holds its advantage.
Compare Diamondback Energy, Inc. and Matador Resources Company 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 MTDR 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.
- Value46 vs 61MTDR +15
- Quality49 vs 35FANG +14
- Momentum82 vs 80Even
- Risk Resilience47 vs 48Even
Neither name separates cleanly on the covered dimensions.
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.
Largest factor move: Risk Resilience +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.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — FANG and MTDR both carry a full feed there.
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
EvenNeither separates on the overall score.
Growth
FANGFANG on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
MTDRMTDR on the peer-relative Value factor, by 15 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
FANGFANG carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
MTDRMTDR 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 | MTDR | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +8.9% | +12.1% | MTDR has more room |
| Target dispersion | +21.7% | +57.1% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 14 | 10 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
How each independent group of evidence reads the pair.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | Even | 56 vs 56 |
| Fundamentals | MTDRon balance | revenue growth 31.2% vs 26%; EPS growth 82.1% vs 11.9%; TTM ROE 4.2% vs 12.8%; gross margin 44.5% vs 102.7%; operating margin 27.7% vs 36.3% — MTDR takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | MTDR | Value 46 vs 61 |
| Technicals | Even | Price vs 50-day 7.4% vs 7.6%; vs 200-day 9.1% vs 10.2% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 47 vs 48 |
| Analyst expectations | MTDR | Target upside 8.9% vs 12.1% |
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 0 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 0 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 29 – Oct 28MTDR lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 0 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- Level
- 56 vs 56
- 7 sessions ago
- Level
- 56 vs 56
- 30 sessions ago
- MTDR +1
- 41 vs 42
- 90 sessions ago
- MTDR +4
- 52 vs 56
The lead changed hands 9 times in this window, most recently on Oct 22 when MTDR 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.
FANG and MTDR carry the same 4 signals, so the signals do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish, Uptrend Structure Active, MACD Bullish Crossover.
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).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +1.75%, AIQ 0 points).
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
MTDR leads on balance| Metric | FANG | MTDR |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 31.2% | 26% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 82.1% | 11.9% |
| Gross margin | 44.5% | 102.7% |
| Operating margin | 27.7% | 36.3% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 4.2% | 12.8% |
| Debt to equity | 0.33 | 0.56 |
Performance
MTDR leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | FANG | MTDR |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 2.6% | 3.6% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 12.2% | 16% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 3.2% | 23.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 0.4% | -4.9% |
| Year to date | 37.2% | 41% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 41.4% | 51.8% |
Technicals
Split| Metric | FANG | MTDR |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 68.8 | 69.4 |
| ADX (14) | 16.5 | 15.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | 7.4% | 7.6% |
| Price vs 200-day | 9.1% | 10.2% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 28.4% | 37.3% |
Risk
Split| Metric | FANG | MTDR |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | -0.52 | -0.76 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.21 | 1.14 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.85 | 1.62 |
| Max drawdown | -19.5% | -29.5% |
| Current drawdown | -3.5% | -8.6% |
| Annualized volatility | 32.7% | 41.2% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.2% | -4.4% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which has more analyst upside, FANG or MTDR?
Analyst price targets imply +8.9% upside for FANG and +12.1% for MTDR, so the Street currently favors MTDR. Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions, and dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Which is better value, FANG or MTDR?
MTDR is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. MTDR on the peer-relative Value factor, by 15 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 MTDR?
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 MTDR?
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 MTDR?
FANG is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. FANG carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility. 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 MTDR?
MTDR leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 44.5% vs 102.7%; operating margin 27.7% vs 36.3%; ttm roe 4.2% vs 12.8%.
What do the current signals say about FANG and MTDR?
FANG: 4 bullish / 0 bearish. MTDR: 4 bullish / 0 bearish. The most decision-relevant rule on FANG is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On MTDR it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare FANG and MTDR 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.