TPL vs XOM Stock Comparison
Compare TPL and XOM across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between TPL and XOM?
XOM leads the current stock comparison as Exxon Mobil Corporation, with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Texas Pacific Land Corporation vs Exxon Mobil Corporation
XOM leads
XOM leads by 3 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Momentum, but the lead has narrowed from 11 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors TPL on target upside.
Fragile: 2 of 6 evidence groups support XOM, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Texas Pacific Land Corporation
Exxon Mobil Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors XOM over TPL, 51 versus 48 as of Sep 11, 2026. XOM's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and momentum, while TPL holds the stronger quality profile. XOM also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors TPL. 2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor XOM today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 3 points. XOM lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 11 to 3 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Texas Pacific Land Corporation and Exxon Mobil 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 TPL 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.
- Value24 vs 42XOM +18
- Momentum45 vs 60XOM +15
- Quality66 vs 52TPL +14
- Risk Resilience62 vs 53TPL +9
2 of 6 evidence groups favor XOM. XOM’s edge is concentrated in value and momentum; TPL 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 -3
No new signals fired.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
XOM's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — TPL and XOM both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
XOM (Exxon Mobil Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and momentum.
TPL (Texas Pacific Land Corporation): the counter-case, on quality, risk resilience, fundamentals — but at materially higher volatility, 34.6% against 23%.
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
XOMXOM on the peer-relative Value factor, by 18 points.
Momentum
XOMXOM on the Momentum factor, by 15 points.
Lower downside
TPLTPL on Risk Resilience, by 9 points.
Analyst upside
TPLTPL 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 TPL. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | TPL | XOM | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +73.1% | +4.8% | TPL has more room |
| Target dispersion | 0% | +18.4% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 1 | 12 | 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
2 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 | Even | 48 vs 51 |
| Fundamentals | TPLon balance | revenue growth 3.9% vs 37.7%; EPS growth 7.7% vs 248%; TTM ROE 35.8% vs 12.7%; gross margin 100.3% vs 25.1%; operating margin 74.9% vs 10.7% — TPL takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | XOM | Value 24 vs 42 |
| Technicals | XOM | Price vs 50-day -4.2% vs 7.4%; vs 200-day -6.8% vs 13.6% |
| Risk Resilience | TPL | Risk Resilience 62 vs 53 |
| Analyst expectations | TPL | Target upside 73.1% vs 4.8% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of TPL 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 3 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 2 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)
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
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10XOM lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 11 to 3 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- XOM +3
- 48 vs 51
- 7 sessions ago
- XOM +3
- 47 vs 50
- 30 sessions ago
- XOM +11
- 44 vs 55
- 90 sessions ago
- TPL +9
- 58 vs 49
The lead changed hands 8 times in this window, most recently on Sep 9 when XOM moved ahead of TPL.
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.
1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (1.92%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (4.14%)
3 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (6.29%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
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.
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.82%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.46%, 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.
- 1TPL closes the Value gap — currently 18 points behind, the largest single contributor to XOM's edge.
- 2TPL's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3XOM's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 8 points over 30 sessions, and a further 3-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
TPL leads on balance| Metric | TPL | XOM |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 3.9% | 37.7% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 7.7% | 248% |
| Gross margin | 100.3% | 25.1% |
| Operating margin | 74.9% | 10.7% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 35.8% | 12.7% |
| Debt to equity | 0.01 | 0.16 |
Performance
XOM leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | TPL | XOM |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -0.3% | 0.7% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 6.8% | 3.4% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -2.4% | 9.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -30.2% | 9% |
| Year to date | 27.5% | 37.3% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 20.4% | 50.4% |
Technicals
XOM has the stronger structure| Metric | TPL | XOM |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 48.1 | 48.4 |
| ADX (14) | 13.1 | 18.9 |
| Price vs 50-day | -4.2% | 7.4% |
| Price vs 200-day | -6.8% | 13.6% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 34.6% | 23% |
Risk
TPL is the more resilient| Metric | TPL | XOM |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.3 | -0.55 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.57 | 1.55 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.82 | 2.37 |
| Max drawdown | -36.9% | -20.6% |
| Current drawdown | -32.2% | -3.6% |
| Annualized volatility | 48.4% | 25.6% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -4.2% | -2.5% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, TPL or XOM?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, XOM is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 51 against TPL's 48. The edge comes from value and momentum. TPL 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 TPL or XOM the better buy right now?
XOM 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 XOM over TPL?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. XOM leads Value by 18 points; XOM leads Momentum by 15 points; TPL leads Quality by 14 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, TPL or XOM?
Analyst price targets imply +73.1% upside for TPL and +4.8% for XOM, so the Street currently favors TPL. 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, TPL or XOM?
XOM is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. XOM on the peer-relative Value factor, by 18 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, TPL 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, TPL or XOM?
XOM on the Momentum factor, by 15 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, TPL or XOM?
TPL is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. TPL 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 TPL more profitable than XOM?
TPL leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 100.3% vs 25.1%; operating margin 74.9% vs 10.7%; ttm roe 35.8% vs 12.7%.
Is XOM's lead over TPL getting stronger or weaker?
XOM lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 11 to 3 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has changed hands 8 times in that window, most recently on 2026-09-09, when XOM moved ahead of TPL.
What would change the TPL vs XOM verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: TPL closes the Value gap — currently 18 points behind, the largest single contributor to XOM's edge; TPL's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; XOM's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 8 points over 30 sessions, and a further 3-point move would eliminate XOM's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about TPL and XOM?
TPL: 1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. XOM: 3 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 TPL is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On XOM it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare TPL 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.