OKE vs XOM Stock Comparison
XOM currently leads OKE in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 57 vs 53. The clearest difference is quality, while OKE has the stronger value profile.
What is the main difference between OKE and XOM?
XOM leads the current stock comparison as Exxon Mobil Corporation, with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
ONEOK, Inc. vs Exxon Mobil Corporation
XOM leads
XOM leads by 4 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Risk Resilience, but the lead has narrowed from 10 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors OKE on target upside.
Fragile: 4 of 6 evidence groups support XOM, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
ONEOK, Inc.
Exxon Mobil Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors XOM over OKE, 57 versus 53 as of Oct 21, 2026. XOM's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and risk resilience, while OKE holds the stronger value profile. XOM also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors OKE. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor XOM today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 4 points. XOM lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 10 to 4 points over 30 sessions.
Compare ONEOK, Inc. and Exxon Mobil Corporation 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 OKE and XOM 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 52XOM +17
- Value50 vs 42OKE +8
- Risk Resilience50 vs 55XOM +5
- Momentum80 vs 82Even
4 of 6 evidence groups favor XOM. XOM’s edge is concentrated in quality and risk resilience; OKE 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.
Largest factor move: Momentum +18
New signals
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
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 7 active signals are unchanged.
XOM's lead narrowed by 5 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — OKE and XOM both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
XOM (Exxon Mobil Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and risk resilience.
OKE (ONEOK, Inc.): the counter-case, on value, valuation, analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 26.5% against 17.7%.
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
XOMXOM on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
XOMXOM on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
OKEOKE on the peer-relative Value factor, by 8 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
XOMXOM on Risk Resilience, by 5 points.
Analyst upside
OKEOKE on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors XOM, analyst targets favor OKE. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | OKE | XOM | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +5.7% | -5.7% | OKE has more room |
| Target dispersion | +24.4% | +56.6% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 11 | 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.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | OKE | XOM |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 1.95% | 2.82% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $3.740 | $3.480 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $4.120 | $4.000 |
| Years increased | 3 | 5 |
| No cut in window | Yes | Yes |
| Cohort rank | #331 | #308 |
XOM grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 2.82% a year against OKE's 1.95%. Neither company reduced its regular dividend in any year of the window.
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
4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor XOM. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | XOM | 53 vs 57 |
| Fundamentals | XOMon balance | revenue growth 25.3% vs 37.7%; EPS growth 24.4% vs 248%; TTM ROE 16.3% vs 12.7%; gross margin 21.8% vs 25.1%; operating margin 18.5% vs 10.7% — XOM takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | OKE | Value 50 vs 42 |
| Technicals | XOM | Price vs 50-day 0.5% vs 8.2%; vs 200-day 5.7% vs 16.8% |
| Risk Resilience | XOM | Risk Resilience 50 vs 55 |
| Analyst expectations | OKE | Target upside 5.7% vs -5.7% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of OKE and XOM 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)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (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 XOM.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20XOM lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 10 to 4 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- XOM +4
- 53 vs 57
- 7 sessions ago
- XOM +10
- 47 vs 57
- 30 sessions ago
- XOM +10
- 40 vs 50
- 90 sessions ago
- XOM +2
- 53 vs 55
The lead changed hands 4 times in this window, most recently on Sep 1 when XOM moved ahead of OKE.
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.
4 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
No signal that the other name lacks.
6 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
Only XOM
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (0.0%)
Both carry 5 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, RSI Overbought, EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish, Uptrend Structure Active, MACD Bullish Crossover.
XOM 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.
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.29%, AIQ +5 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.13%, 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.
- 1OKE closes the Quality gap — currently 17 points behind, the largest single contributor to XOM's edge.
- 2OKE's RSI Overbought resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 3XOM'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 XOM'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
XOM leads on balance| Metric | OKE | XOM |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 25.3% | 37.7% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 24.4% | 248% |
| Gross margin | 21.8% | 25.1% |
| Operating margin | 18.5% | 10.7% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 16.3% | 12.7% |
| Debt to equity | 1.44 | 0.16 |
Performance
XOM leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | OKE | XOM |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -0.6% | 2.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 3.1% | 12.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 1.2% | 15.2% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 9.6% | 19.9% |
| Year to date | 26.3% | 46.9% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 36.1% | 60.2% |
Technicals
XOM has the stronger structure| Metric | OKE | XOM |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 70.9 | 83 |
| ADX (14) | 13.7 | 27.8 |
| Price vs 50-day | 0.5% | 8.2% |
| Price vs 200-day | 5.7% | 16.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 26.5% | 17.7% |
Risk
XOM is the more resilient| Metric | OKE | XOM |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | -0.55 | -0.67 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.13 | 1.76 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.67 | 2.61 |
| Max drawdown | -12.6% | -20.6% |
| Current drawdown | -4.8% | -0.6% |
| Annualized volatility | 27.5% | 26% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.8% | -2.6% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, OKE or XOM?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, XOM is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 57 against OKE's 53. The edge comes from quality and risk resilience. OKE 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 OKE or XOM the better buy right now?
XOM carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 4 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 XOM over OKE?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. XOM leads Quality by 17 points; OKE leads Value by 8 points; XOM leads Risk Resilience by 5 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, OKE or XOM?
Analyst price targets imply +5.7% upside for OKE and -5.7% for XOM, so the Street currently favors OKE. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors XOM. 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, OKE or XOM?
OKE is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. OKE on the peer-relative Value factor, by 8 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, OKE or XOM?
XOM 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, OKE or XOM?
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, OKE or XOM?
XOM is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. XOM on Risk Resilience, by 5 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 OKE more profitable than XOM?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 21.8% vs 25.1%; operating margin 18.5% vs 10.7%; ttm roe 16.3% vs 12.7%. OKE leads on two measures and XOM 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 XOM's lead over OKE getting stronger or weaker?
XOM lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 10 to 4 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 4 times in that window, most recently on 2026-09-01, when XOM moved ahead of OKE.
What would change the OKE vs XOM verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: OKE closes the Quality gap — currently 17 points behind, the largest single contributor to XOM's edge; OKE's RSI Overbought resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it; XOM'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 XOM's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about OKE and XOM?
OKE: 4 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. XOM: 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 OKE is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On XOM it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare OKE and XOM 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.