KMI vs TRGP Stock Comparison
TRGP currently leads KMI in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 52 vs 51. The clearest difference is quality, while KMI has the stronger value profile.
What is the main difference between KMI and TRGP?
TRGP leads the current stock comparison as Targa Resources Corp., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Kinder Morgan, Inc. vs Targa Resources Corp.
TRGP leads
TRGP leads by 1 AIQ points, primarily on Quality, having only recently taken the lead back from KMI. Wall Street currently favors KMI on target upside.
Fragile: 2 of 6 evidence groups support TRGP, the lead recently changed hands, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Kinder Morgan, Inc.
Targa Resources Corp.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors TRGP over KMI, 52 versus 51 as of Oct 22, 2026. TRGP's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality, while KMI holds the stronger value profile. TRGP also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors KMI. 2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor TRGP today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. TRGP lead: Reversed — KMI led by 2 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; TRGP now leads by 1.
Compare Kinder Morgan, Inc. and Targa Resources Corp. 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 KMI and TRGP 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.
- Quality51 vs 56TRGP +5
- Value31 vs 26KMI +5
- Momentum79 vs 81Even
- Risk Resilience47 vs 45Even
2 of 6 evidence groups favor TRGP. TRGP’s edge is concentrated in quality; KMI keeps a meaningful value edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-20, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-19.
No factor moved materially.
New signals
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum +3
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
TRGP's lead widened by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — KMI and TRGP both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
TRGP (Targa Resources Corp.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality.
KMI (Kinder Morgan, Inc.): the counter-case, on value, valuation, 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
TRGPTRGP on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
TRGPTRGP on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
KMIKMI on the peer-relative Value factor, by 5 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
KMIKMI carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
KMIKMI on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors TRGP, analyst targets favor KMI. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | KMI | TRGP | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +8.1% | +5.7% | KMI has more room |
| Target dispersion | +27.2% | +32.7% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 5 | 13 | 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.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | KMI | TRGP |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 2.33% | 25.39% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $1.039 | $1.210 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $1.165 | $3.750 |
| Years increased | 5 | 4 |
| No cut in window | Yes | No (1) |
| Cohort rank | #320 | not ranked |
TRGP grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 25.39% a year against KMI's 2.33%. KMI never reduced its regular dividend in the window; TRGP did in 1 year. They are ranked in different cohorts — US dividend-paying corporations and variable-dividend payers — so their ranks are not comparable with each other.
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 6 covered evidence groups favor TRGP. 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 | 51 vs 52 |
| Fundamentals | TRGPon balance | revenue growth -7.3% vs 8.4%; EPS growth -11.4% vs 59.6%; TTM ROE 11.1% vs 72.1%; gross margin 54.9% vs 36.6%; operating margin 29% vs 23.1% — TRGP takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | KMI | Value 31 vs 26 |
| Technicals | TRGP | Price vs 50-day 6.9% vs 3.1%; vs 200-day 5.5% vs 14.9% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 47 vs 45 |
| Analyst expectations | KMI | Target upside 8.1% vs 5.7% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of KMI and TRGP 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 1 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 2 of 6 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 TRGP.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20TRGP lead: Reversed — KMI led by 2 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; TRGP now leads by 1.
- Today
- TRGP +1
- 51 vs 52
- 7 sessions ago
- KMI +7
- 52 vs 45
- 30 sessions ago
- KMI +2
- 40 vs 38
- 90 sessions ago
- TRGP +1
- 49 vs 50
The lead changed hands 11 times in this window, most recently on Oct 6 when KMI moved ahead of TRGP.
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 / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only KMI
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (0.13%)
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
4 bullish / 0 bearish
Only TRGP
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (12.65%)
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish, MACD Bullish Crossover.
KMI 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 +1.19%, AIQ 0 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +1.01%, 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.
- 1KMI closes the Quality gap — currently 5 points behind, the largest single contributor to TRGP's edge.
- 2KMI's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3TRGP'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
TRGP leads on balance| Metric | KMI | TRGP |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -7.3% | 8.4% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -11.4% | 59.6% |
| Gross margin | 54.9% | 36.6% |
| Operating margin | 29% | 23.1% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 11.1% | 72.1% |
| Debt to equity | 1.02 | 5.51 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | KMI | TRGP |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 0.4% | -0.1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 7.4% | 3.7% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 3.3% | 2.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 6.3% | 25.8% |
| Year to date | 22.1% | 58.6% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 23.4% | 97.8% |
Technicals
TRGP has the stronger structure| Metric | KMI | TRGP |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 74.6 | 69.2 |
| ADX (14) | 17.4 | 10.5 |
| Price vs 50-day | 6.9% | 3.1% |
| Price vs 200-day | 5.5% | 14.9% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 25% | 27.4% |
Risk
Split| Metric | KMI | TRGP |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | -0.21 | -0.35 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.87 | 2.41 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.35 | 4.22 |
| Max drawdown | -12.1% | -10.6% |
| Current drawdown | -2.2% | -3.2% |
| Annualized volatility | 21.6% | 28.2% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.1% | -2.6% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, KMI or TRGP?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, TRGP is the stronger of the two as of Oct 22, 2026, scoring 52 against KMI's 51. The edge comes from quality. KMI is not without a case — it holds the better value 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 KMI or TRGP the better buy right now?
TRGP carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 22, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor TRGP over KMI?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. TRGP leads Quality by 5 points; KMI leads Value by 5 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, KMI or TRGP?
Analyst price targets imply +8.1% upside for KMI and +5.7% for TRGP, so the Street currently favors KMI. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors TRGP. 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, KMI or TRGP?
KMI is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. KMI on the peer-relative Value factor, by 5 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, KMI or TRGP?
TRGP 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, KMI or TRGP?
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, KMI or TRGP?
KMI is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. KMI 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 KMI more profitable than TRGP?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 54.9% vs 36.6%; operating margin 29% vs 23.1%; ttm roe 11.1% vs 72.1%. KMI leads on two measures and TRGP 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 TRGP's lead over KMI getting stronger or weaker?
TRGP lead: Reversed — KMI led by 2 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; TRGP now leads by 1. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has changed hands 11 times in that window, most recently on 2026-10-06, when KMI moved ahead of TRGP.
What would change the KMI vs TRGP verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: KMI closes the Quality gap — currently 5 points behind, the largest single contributor to TRGP's edge; KMI's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; TRGP'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 KMI and TRGP?
KMI: 3 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. TRGP: 4 bullish / 0 bearish. 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 KMI is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On TRGP it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare KMI and TRGP 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.