TRGP vs USAC Stock Comparison
Compare TRGP and USAC across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between TRGP and USAC?
USAC leads the current stock comparison as USA Compression Partners, LP, with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Targa Resources Corp. vs USA Compression Partners, LP
USAC leads
USAC leads by 9 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Quality.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support USAC, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Targa Resources Corp.
USA Compression Partners, LP
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors USAC over TRGP, 53 versus 44 as of Sep 11, 2026. USAC's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and quality. USAC also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor USAC today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. USAC lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 9 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Targa Resources Corp. and USA Compression Partners, LP 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 TRGP 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.
- Momentum51 vs 79USAC +28
- Quality56 vs 60USAC +4
- Value26 vs 28Even
- Risk Resilience42 vs 44Even
3 of 6 evidence groups favor USAC. USAC’s edge is concentrated in momentum and quality.
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 -5
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum +6
New signals
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
USAC's lead widened by 3 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — TRGP and USAC both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
USAC (USA Compression Partners, LP): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and quality.
TRGP (Targa Resources Corp.): the counter-case, on technicals — but at materially higher volatility, 34.9% against 16.8%.
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
USACUSAC on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
TRGPTRGP on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
USACUSAC on the Momentum factor, by 28 points.
Lower downside
USACUSAC carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
USACUSAC 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 | TRGP | USAC | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +4.6% | +8.5% | USAC has more room |
| Target dispersion | +33.3% | +6.7% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 13 | 2 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor USAC. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | USAC | 44 vs 53 |
| Fundamentals | USACon balance | revenue growth 8.4% vs 3.3%; EPS growth 59.6% vs 14.8%; TTM ROE 72.1% vs 141.2%; gross margin 36.6% vs 44.7%; operating margin 23.1% vs 30.1% — USAC takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | Even | Value 26 vs 28 |
| Technicals | TRGP | Price vs 50-day 4% vs 4%; vs 200-day 21.7% vs 4.8% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 42 vs 44 |
| Analyst expectations | USAC | Target upside 4.6% vs 8.5% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of TRGP 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 9 points.
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (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 USAC.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10USAC lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 9 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- USAC +9
- 44 vs 53
- 7 sessions ago
- USAC +1
- 48 vs 49
- 30 sessions ago
- USAC +8
- 52 vs 60
- 90 sessions ago
- USAC +6
- 48 vs 54
The lead has not changed hands in this window.
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 / 1 bearish, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (16.37%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
4 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (0.26%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
USAC 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 down over the latest session (price -0.57%, AIQ -1 points).
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 2 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -0.47%, 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.
- 1TRGP closes the Momentum gap — currently 28 points behind, the largest single contributor to USAC's edge.
- 2TRGP generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover.
- 3USAC's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 4 bullish and 1 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 | TRGP | USAC |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 8.4% | 3.3% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 59.6% | 14.8% |
| Gross margin | 36.6% | 44.7% |
| Operating margin | 23.1% | 30.1% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 72.1% | 141.2% |
| Debt to equity | 5.51 | 10.3 |
Performance
TRGP leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | TRGP | USAC |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -0.5% | 1.1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 8.7% | 4.8% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 7.1% | 0.2% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 23.4% | 1.2% |
| Year to date | 58.2% | 20.7% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 81.9% | 18.9% |
Technicals
TRGP has the stronger structure| Metric | TRGP | USAC |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 39.8 | 74.7 |
| ADX (14) | 22.3 | 19.7 |
| Price vs 50-day | 4% | 4% |
| Price vs 200-day | 21.7% | 4.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 34.9% | 16.8% |
Risk
Split| Metric | TRGP | USAC |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | -0.2 | 0.13 |
| Sharpe ratio | 2.05 | 0.63 |
| Sortino ratio | 3.22 | 0.99 |
| Max drawdown | -16% | -18.1% |
| Current drawdown | -3.4% | -8.3% |
| Annualized volatility | 29.3% | 28.4% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.9% | -2.8% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, TRGP or USAC?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, USAC is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 53 against TRGP's 44. The edge comes from momentum and quality. 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 TRGP or USAC the better buy right now?
USAC carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 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 USAC over TRGP?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. USAC leads Momentum by 28 points; USAC leads Quality by 4 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, TRGP or USAC?
Analyst price targets imply +4.6% upside for TRGP and +8.5% for USAC, so the Street currently favors USAC. 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, TRGP 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, TRGP or USAC?
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, TRGP or USAC?
USAC on the Momentum factor, by 28 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, TRGP or USAC?
USAC is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. USAC 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 TRGP more profitable than USAC?
USAC leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 36.6% vs 44.7%; operating margin 23.1% vs 30.1%; ttm roe 72.1% vs 141.2%.
Is USAC's lead over TRGP getting stronger or weaker?
USAC lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 9 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the TRGP vs USAC verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: TRGP closes the Momentum gap — currently 28 points behind, the largest single contributor to USAC's edge; TRGP generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover; USAC's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 4 bullish and 1 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 TRGP and USAC?
TRGP: 3 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. USAC: 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 TRGP is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On USAC it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare TRGP 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.