TRGP vs WMB Stock Comparison
Compare TRGP and WMB across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between TRGP and WMB?
TRGP leads the current stock comparison as Targa Resources Corp., with the clearest separation coming from balanced and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Targa Resources Corp. vs The Williams Companies, Inc.
TRGP leads
TRGP leads by 1 AIQ points, but the lead has narrowed from 8 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors WMB on target upside.
Fragile: 1 of 6 evidence groups support TRGP, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Targa Resources Corp.
The Williams Companies, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors TRGP over WMB, 44 versus 43 as of Sep 11, 2026. TRGP also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors WMB. 1 of 6 covered evidence groups favor TRGP today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. TRGP lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 8 to 1 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Targa Resources Corp. and The Williams Companies, Inc. 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 WMB 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.
- Quality56 vs 54Even
- Value26 vs 24Even
- Momentum51 vs 52Even
- Risk Resilience42 vs 42Even
1 of 6 evidence groups favor TRGP. Neither name separates cleanly on the covered dimensions.
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 -17
No new signals fired.
The lead changed hands: TRGP moved ahead of WMB in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — TRGP and WMB both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
TRGP (Targa Resources Corp.): the stronger current systematic profile.
WMB (The Williams Companies, Inc.): the counter-case, on 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
TRGPTRGP 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
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
WMBWMB carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
WMBWMB on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors TRGP, analyst targets favor WMB. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | TRGP | WMB | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +4.6% | +21% | WMB has more room |
| Target dispersion | +33.3% | +31.8% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 13 | 11 | 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
1 of 6 covered evidence groups favor TRGP. 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 | 44 vs 43 |
| Fundamentals | Even | EPS growth 59.6% vs -4.2%; TTM ROE 72.1% vs 23.9%; gross margin 36.6% vs 73.6%; operating margin 23.1% vs 40.3% |
| Valuation | Even | Value 26 vs 24 |
| Technicals | TRGP | Price vs 50-day 4% vs -0.6%; vs 200-day 21.7% vs 3.5% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 42 vs 42 |
| Analyst expectations | WMB | Target upside 4.6% vs 21% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of TRGP and WMB 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 1 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 1 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 TRGP.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10TRGP lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 8 to 1 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- TRGP +1
- 44 vs 43
- 7 sessions ago
- TRGP +2
- 48 vs 46
- 30 sessions ago
- TRGP +8
- 52 vs 44
- 90 sessions ago
- Level
- 48 vs 48
The lead changed hands 5 times in this window, most recently on Sep 10 when TRGP moved ahead of WMB.
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
3 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (4.15%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
TRGP 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).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.04%, AIQ -4 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.
- 1WMB's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 2TRGP's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 3The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 7 points over 30 sessions, and a further 1-point move would eliminate TRGP'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
Split| Metric | TRGP | WMB |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 8.4% | 0.8% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 59.6% | -4.2% |
| Gross margin | 36.6% | 73.6% |
| Operating margin | 23.1% | 40.3% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 72.1% | 23.9% |
| Debt to equity | 5.51 | 2.33 |
Performance
TRGP leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | TRGP | WMB |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -0.5% | -3.1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 8.7% | -1.2% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 7.1% | 0.8% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 23.4% | -2.1% |
| Year to date | 58.2% | 21.1% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 81.9% | 28.1% |
Technicals
TRGP has the stronger structure| Metric | TRGP | WMB |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 39.8 | 54.3 |
| ADX (14) | 22.3 | 16.7 |
| Price vs 50-day | 4% | -0.6% |
| Price vs 200-day | 21.7% | 3.5% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 34.9% | 32.1% |
Risk
Split| Metric | TRGP | WMB |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | -0.2 | 0.01 |
| Sharpe ratio | 2.05 | 0.93 |
| Sortino ratio | 3.22 | 1.45 |
| Max drawdown | -16% | -12.4% |
| Current drawdown | -3.4% | -8.3% |
| Annualized volatility | 29.3% | 24.5% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.9% | -2.4% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, TRGP or WMB?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, TRGP is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 44 against WMB's 43. The edge comes from its factor profile. 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 WMB the better buy right now?
TRGP carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 1 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor TRGP over WMB?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. . Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, TRGP or WMB?
Analyst price targets imply +4.6% upside for TRGP and +21% for WMB, so the Street currently favors WMB. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors TRGP. 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, TRGP or WMB?
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 WMB?
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 WMB?
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, TRGP or WMB?
WMB is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. WMB 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 WMB?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 36.6% vs 73.6%; operating margin 23.1% vs 40.3%; ttm roe 72.1% vs 23.9%. TRGP leads on one measure and WMB 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 TRGP's lead over WMB getting stronger or weaker?
TRGP lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 8 to 1 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 5 times in that window, most recently on 2026-09-10, when TRGP moved ahead of WMB.
What would change the TRGP vs WMB verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: WMB's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; TRGP'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 7 points over 30 sessions, and a further 1-point move would eliminate TRGP's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about TRGP and WMB?
TRGP: 3 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. WMB: 3 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. 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 WMB it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare TRGP and WMB 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.