KMI vs USAC Stock Comparison
KMI currently leads USAC in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 51 vs 44. The clearest difference is momentum, while USAC has the stronger quality profile.
What is the main difference between KMI and USAC?
KMI leads the current stock comparison as Kinder Morgan, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Kinder Morgan, Inc. vs USA Compression Partners, LP
KMI leads
KMI leads by 7 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Risk Resilience, and the lead has widened from 2 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors USAC on target upside.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support KMI, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Kinder Morgan, Inc.
USA Compression Partners, LP
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors KMI over USAC, 51 versus 44 as of Oct 22, 2026. KMI's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and risk resilience, while USAC holds the stronger quality profile. KMI also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors USAC. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor KMI today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. KMI lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 2 to 7 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Kinder Morgan, Inc. and USA Compression Partners, LP 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 USAC 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.
- Momentum79 vs 47KMI +32
- Quality51 vs 60USAC +9
- Risk Resilience47 vs 38KMI +9
- Value31 vs 28Even
3 of 6 evidence groups favor KMI. KMI’s edge is concentrated in momentum and risk resilience; USAC keeps a meaningful quality 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 +6
New signals
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
KMI's lead narrowed by 2 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — KMI and USAC both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
KMI (Kinder Morgan, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and risk resilience.
USAC (USA Compression Partners, LP): the counter-case, on quality, 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
KMIKMI on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
USACUSAC on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
KMIKMI on the Momentum factor, by 32 points.
Lower downside
KMIKMI on Risk Resilience, by 9 points.
Analyst upside
USACUSAC on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors KMI, analyst targets favor USAC. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | KMI | USAC | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +8.1% | +19.2% | USAC has more room |
| Target dispersion | +27.2% | +6.7% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 5 | 2 | 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 | USAC |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 2.33% | 0.00% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $1.039 | $2.100 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $1.165 | $2.100 |
| Years increased | 5 | 0 |
| No cut in window | Yes | Yes |
| Cohort rank | #320 | #2 |
KMI grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 2.33% a year against USAC's 0.00%. Neither company reduced its regular dividend in any year of the window. They are ranked in different cohorts — US dividend-paying corporations and master limited partnerships — 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
3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor KMI. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | KMI | 51 vs 44 |
| Fundamentals | USACon balance | revenue growth -7.3% vs 3.3%; EPS growth -11.4% vs 14.8%; TTM ROE 11.1% vs 141.2%; gross margin 54.9% vs 44.7%; operating margin 29% vs 30.1% — USAC takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | Even | Value 31 vs 28 |
| Technicals | KMI | Price vs 50-day 6.9% vs -4%; vs 200-day 5.5% vs -4.5% |
| Risk Resilience | KMI | Risk Resilience 47 vs 38 |
| Analyst expectations | USAC | Target upside 8.1% vs 19.2% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of KMI and USAC 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 moderate at 7 points.
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (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 KMI.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20KMI lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 2 to 7 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- KMI +7
- 51 vs 44
- 7 sessions ago
- KMI +11
- 52 vs 41
- 30 sessions ago
- KMI +2
- 40 vs 38
- 90 sessions ago
- USAC +12
- 49 vs 61
The lead changed hands 5 times in this window, most recently on Sep 17 when KMI moved ahead of USAC.
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
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only USAC
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
Both carry 3 more signals that do not separate them: Bollinger Band Squeeze, Death Cross Active, MACD Bullish Crossover.
KMI 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 +1.19%, AIQ 0 points).
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 2 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -1.49%, AIQ +2 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.
- 1USAC closes the Momentum gap — currently 32 points behind, the largest single contributor to KMI's edge.
- 2USAC's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3KMI's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 2 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
USAC leads on balance| Metric | KMI | USAC |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -7.3% | 3.3% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -11.4% | 14.8% |
| Gross margin | 54.9% | 44.7% |
| Operating margin | 29% | 30.1% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 11.1% | 141.2% |
| Debt to equity | 1.02 | 10.3 |
Performance
KMI leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | KMI | USAC |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 0.4% | -0.8% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 7.4% | 0% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 3.3% | -4.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 6.3% | -3.4% |
| Year to date | 22.1% | 11.1% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 23.4% | 12.8% |
Technicals
KMI has the stronger structure| Metric | KMI | USAC |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 74.6 | 56.7 |
| ADX (14) | 17.4 | 13.3 |
| Price vs 50-day | 6.9% | -4% |
| Price vs 200-day | 5.5% | -4.5% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 25% | 25.1% |
Risk
KMI is the more resilient| Metric | KMI | USAC |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | -0.21 | 0.08 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.87 | 0.36 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.35 | 0.58 |
| Max drawdown | -12.1% | -18.1% |
| Current drawdown | -2.2% | -15.7% |
| Annualized volatility | 21.6% | 28.5% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.1% | -2.8% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, KMI or USAC?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, KMI is the stronger of the two as of Oct 22, 2026, scoring 51 against USAC's 44. The edge comes from momentum and risk resilience. USAC 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 KMI or USAC the better buy right now?
KMI carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 22, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor KMI over USAC?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. KMI leads Momentum by 32 points; USAC leads Quality by 9 points; KMI leads Risk Resilience by 9 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, KMI or USAC?
Analyst price targets imply +8.1% upside for KMI and +19.2% for USAC, so the Street currently favors USAC. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors KMI. 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 USAC?
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, KMI or USAC?
USAC 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 USAC?
KMI on the Momentum factor, by 32 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, KMI or USAC?
KMI is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. KMI on Risk Resilience, by 9 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 KMI more profitable than USAC?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 54.9% vs 44.7%; operating margin 29% vs 30.1%; ttm roe 11.1% vs 141.2%. KMI leads on one measure and USAC on two measures, 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 KMI's lead over USAC getting stronger or weaker?
KMI lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 2 to 7 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has changed hands 5 times in that window, most recently on 2026-09-17, when KMI moved ahead of USAC.
What would change the KMI vs USAC verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: USAC closes the Momentum gap — currently 32 points behind, the largest single contributor to KMI's edge; USAC's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; KMI's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 2 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 KMI and USAC?
KMI: 3 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. USAC: 1 bullish / 2 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 KMI is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On USAC it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare KMI and USAC 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.