HAL vs MPC Stock Comparison
Compare HAL and MPC across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between HAL and MPC?
MPC leads the current stock comparison as Marathon Petroleum Corporation, with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Halliburton Company vs Marathon Petroleum Corporation
MPC leads
MPC leads by 4 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Momentum, but the lead has narrowed from 10 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors HAL on target upside.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support MPC, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Halliburton Company
Marathon Petroleum Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors MPC over HAL, 60 versus 56 as of Sep 6, 2026. MPC's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and momentum, while HAL holds the stronger risk resilience profile. MPC also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors HAL. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor MPC today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 4 points. MPC lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 10 to 4 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Halliburton Company and Marathon Petroleum 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 HAL and MPC 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.
- Risk Resilience15%60 vs 48HAL +12
- Quality30%41 vs 48MPC +7
- Momentum25%76 vs 83MPC +7
- Value30%53 vs 59MPC +6
3 of 6 evidence groups favor MPC. MPC’s edge is concentrated in quality and momentum; HAL keeps a meaningful risk resilience edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-05, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-04.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
MPC's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — HAL and MPC both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
MPC (Marathon Petroleum Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and momentum.
HAL (Halliburton Company): the counter-case, on risk resilience, fundamentals, analyst expectations.
The AIQ Score and Wall Street therefore point in different directions on this pair.
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
MPCMPC on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
MPCMPC on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
MPCMPC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 6 points.
Momentum
MPCMPC on the Momentum factor, by 7 points.
Lower downside
HALHAL on Risk Resilience, by 12 points.
Analyst upside
HALHAL on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors MPC, analyst targets favor HAL. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | HAL | MPC | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +13.9% | -19.2% | HAL has more room |
| Target dispersion | +61.6% | +74.5% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 9 | 9 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
The two are measuring different things. The AIQ Score reads current fundamentals, valuation, trend and risk; analyst targets price forward expectations. A divergence of this kind is either a contrarian opportunity or a sign the model is missing something already priced in — it is worth resolving before acting on either.
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor MPC. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | MPC | 56 vs 60 |
| Fundamentals | HALon balance | revenue growth 5.8% vs 50.4%; EPS growth 16.4% vs 9.2%; TTM ROE 15.1% vs 48.7%; gross margin 15.1% vs 11.6%; operating margin 11.4% vs 8% — HAL takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | MPC | Value 53 vs 59 |
| Technicals | MPC | Price vs 50-day 8.7% vs 20.8%; vs 200-day 6.5% vs 60.9% |
| Risk Resilience | HAL | Risk Resilience 60 vs 48 |
| Analyst expectations | HAL | Target upside 13.9% vs -19.2% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of HAL and MPC 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 4 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Analyst targets on the leader are widely dispersed. (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 MPC.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 24 – Sep 5MPC lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 10 to 4 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- MPC +4
- 56 vs 60
- 7 sessions ago
- MPC +2
- 57 vs 59
- 30 sessions ago
- MPC +10
- 52 vs 62
- 90 sessions ago
- MPC +11
- 46 vs 57
The lead changed hands 3 times in this window, most recently on May 27 when MPC moved ahead of HAL.
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.
2 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (2.08%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
6 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (33.23%)
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
MPC 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.
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -0.59%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.31%, 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.
- 1HAL closes the Quality gap — currently 7 points behind, the largest single contributor to MPC's edge.
- 2HAL's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3MPC's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 6 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 6 points over 30 sessions, and a further 4-point move would eliminate MPC's advantage entirely.
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
HAL leads on balance| Metric | HAL | MPC |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 5.8% | 50.4% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 16.4% | 9.2% |
| Gross margin | 15.1% | 11.6% |
| Operating margin | 11.4% | 8% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 15.1% | 48.7% |
| Debt to equity | 0.74 | 1.8 |
Performance
MPC leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | HAL | MPC |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 2.5% | 5.4% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 16.2% | 29.6% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -5.4% | 48.4% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 8.9% | 75.8% |
| Year to date | 31.2% | 135% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 71.7% | 117.3% |
Technicals
MPC has the stronger structure| Metric | HAL | MPC |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 65.6 | 74.8 |
| ADX (14) | 22.6 | 43.4 |
| Price vs 50-day | 8.7% | 20.8% |
| Price vs 200-day | 6.5% | 60.9% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 34.2% | 34.7% |
Risk
HAL is the more resilient| Metric | HAL | MPC |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.2 | -0.14 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.47 | 2.33 |
| Sortino ratio | 2.7 | 3.55 |
| Max drawdown | -27.4% | -18.7% |
| Current drawdown | -13.8% | 0% |
| Annualized volatility | 35.9% | 34.3% |
| 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, HAL or MPC?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, MPC is the stronger of the two as of Sep 6, 2026, scoring 60 against HAL's 56. The edge comes from quality and momentum. HAL is not without a case — it holds the better risk resilience 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 HAL or MPC the better buy right now?
MPC carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 6, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 4 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor MPC over HAL?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. HAL leads Risk Resilience by 12 points; MPC leads Quality by 7 points; MPC leads Momentum by 7 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, HAL or MPC?
Analyst price targets imply +13.9% upside for HAL and -19.2% for MPC, so the Street currently favors HAL. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors MPC. The two are measuring different things: the model reads current fundamentals, valuation, trend and risk; the Street is pricing forward expectations. A divergence of this kind is either a contrarian opportunity or a sign the model is missing something the analysts have already priced — it is the single most useful row on this page to investigate. Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions, and dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Which is better value, HAL or MPC?
MPC is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. MPC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 6 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, HAL or MPC?
MPC 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, HAL or MPC?
MPC on the Momentum factor, by 7 points. Momentum carries 25% of 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, HAL or MPC?
HAL is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. HAL on Risk Resilience, by 12 points. The Risk Resilience factor weights 15% of the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is HAL more profitable than MPC?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 15.1% vs 11.6%; operating margin 11.4% vs 8%; ttm roe 15.1% vs 48.7%. HAL leads on two measures and MPC 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 MPC's lead over HAL getting stronger or weaker?
MPC lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 10 to 4 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-24 and 2026-09-05. The lead has changed hands 3 times in that window, most recently on 2026-05-27, when MPC moved ahead of HAL.
What would change the HAL vs MPC verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: HAL closes the Quality gap — currently 7 points behind, the largest single contributor to MPC's edge; HAL's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; MPC's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 6 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 6 points over 30 sessions, and a further 4-point move would eliminate MPC's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about HAL and MPC?
HAL: 2 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. MPC: 6 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 HAL is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On MPC it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare HAL and MPC with others
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality (30%), Value (30%), Momentum (25%) and Risk (15%). 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.