MTDR vs PR Stock Comparison
Compare MTDR and PR across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between MTDR and PR?
MTDR leads the current stock comparison as Matador Resources Company, with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Matador Resources Company vs Permian Resources Corporation
MTDR leads
MTDR leads by 3 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Momentum, having only recently taken the lead back from PR.
Fragile: 2 of 6 evidence groups support MTDR, the lead recently changed hands, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Matador Resources Company
Permian Resources Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors MTDR over PR, 55 versus 52 as of Sep 11, 2026. MTDR's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and momentum, while PR holds the stronger quality profile. MTDR also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor MTDR today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 3 points. MTDR lead: Reversed — PR led by 2 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; MTDR now leads by 3.
Compare Matador Resources Company and Permian Resources 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 MTDR and PR 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.
- Quality35 vs 60PR +25
- Value61 vs 40MTDR +21
- Momentum74 vs 60MTDR +14
- Risk Resilience52 vs 49Even
2 of 6 evidence groups favor MTDR. MTDR’s edge is concentrated in value and momentum; PR keeps a meaningful quality edge.
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 +1
New signals
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum -7
No new signals fired.
MTDR's lead widened by 2 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — MTDR and PR both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
MTDR (Matador Resources Company): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and momentum.
PR (Permian Resources Corporation): the counter-case, on quality, fundamentals, 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
MTDRMTDR on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
PRPR on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
MTDRMTDR on the peer-relative Value factor, by 21 points.
Momentum
MTDRMTDR on the Momentum factor, by 14 points.
Lower downside
PRPR 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 | MTDR | PR | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +14.9% | +8% | MTDR has more room |
| Target dispersion | +55.6% | +23.4% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 10 | 9 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor MTDR. 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 | 55 vs 52 |
| Fundamentals | PRon balance | revenue growth 26% vs 33.9%; EPS growth 11.9% vs 16.7%; TTM ROE 12.8% vs 11.3%; gross margin 102.7% vs 49.9%; operating margin 36.3% vs 37.7% — PR takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | MTDR | Value 61 vs 40 |
| Technicals | PR | Price vs 50-day 13.9% vs 11.5%; vs 200-day 18.3% vs 26.4% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 52 vs 49 |
| Analyst expectations | MTDR | Target upside 14.9% vs 8% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of MTDR and PR 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 3 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 lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 MTDR.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10MTDR lead: Reversed — PR led by 2 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; MTDR now leads by 3.
- Today
- MTDR +3
- 55 vs 52
- 7 sessions ago
- Level
- 55 vs 55
- 30 sessions ago
- PR +2
- 56 vs 58
- 90 sessions ago
- PR +2
- 50 vs 52
The lead changed hands once in this window, most recently on Sep 9 when MTDR moved ahead of PR.
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.
5 bullish / 0 bearish
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (2.90%)
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
4 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (13.69%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
PR 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 -0.93%, AIQ 0 points).
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 2 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +0.34%, 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.
- 1PR closes the Value gap — currently 21 points behind, the largest single contributor to MTDR's edge.
- 2PR's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3MTDR'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
PR leads on balance| Metric | MTDR | PR |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 26% | 33.9% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 11.9% | 16.7% |
| Gross margin | 102.7% | 49.9% |
| Operating margin | 36.3% | 37.7% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 12.8% | 11.3% |
| Debt to equity | 0.56 | 0.26 |
Performance
PR leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | MTDR | PR |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 3.4% | -0.5% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 17.3% | 10.5% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 12.2% | 20.1% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 9.6% | 22.5% |
| Year to date | 45.2% | 68.9% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 28.3% | 71.9% |
Technicals
PR has the stronger structure| Metric | MTDR | PR |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 64.1 | 47.9 |
| ADX (14) | 26 | 28 |
| Price vs 50-day | 13.9% | 11.5% |
| Price vs 200-day | 18.3% | 26.4% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 31% | 29.7% |
Risk
Split| Metric | MTDR | PR |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | -0.5 | -0.38 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.75 | 1.68 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.04 | 2.63 |
| Max drawdown | -29.5% | -20.4% |
| Current drawdown | -5.8% | -0.7% |
| Annualized volatility | 42% | 33.5% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -4.7% | -3.4% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, MTDR or PR?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, MTDR is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 55 against PR's 52. The edge comes from value and momentum. PR 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 MTDR or PR the better buy right now?
MTDR carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 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 3 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor MTDR over PR?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. PR leads Quality by 25 points; MTDR leads Value by 21 points; MTDR leads Momentum by 14 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, MTDR or PR?
Analyst price targets imply +14.9% upside for MTDR and +8% for PR, so the Street currently favors MTDR. 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, MTDR or PR?
MTDR is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. MTDR on the peer-relative Value factor, by 21 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, MTDR or PR?
PR 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, MTDR or PR?
MTDR on the Momentum factor, by 14 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, MTDR or PR?
PR is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. PR 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 MTDR more profitable than PR?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 102.7% vs 49.9%; operating margin 36.3% vs 37.7%; ttm roe 12.8% vs 11.3%. MTDR leads on two measures and PR 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 MTDR's lead over PR getting stronger or weaker?
MTDR lead: Reversed — PR led by 2 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; MTDR now leads by 3. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has changed hands once in that window, most recently on 2026-09-09, when MTDR moved ahead of PR.
What would change the MTDR vs PR verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: PR closes the Value gap — currently 21 points behind, the largest single contributor to MTDR's edge; PR's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; MTDR'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 MTDR and PR?
MTDR: 5 bullish / 0 bearish. PR: 4 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 MTDR is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On PR it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare MTDR and PR 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.