XOM vs CAT Stock Comparison
XOM currently leads CAT in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 57 vs 36. The clearest difference is momentum.
What is the main difference between XOM and CAT?
XOM leads the current stock comparison as Exxon Mobil Corporation, with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Exxon Mobil Corporation vs Caterpillar Inc.
XOM leads
XOM leads by 21 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Risk Resilience, having only recently taken the lead back from CAT. Wall Street currently favors CAT on target upside.
Fragile: 4 of 6 evidence groups support XOM, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Exxon Mobil Corporation
Caterpillar Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors XOM over CAT, 57 versus 36 as of Oct 21, 2026. XOM's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and risk resilience. XOM also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors CAT. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor XOM today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. XOM lead: Reversed — CAT led by 2 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; XOM now leads by 21.
Compare Exxon Mobil Corporation and Caterpillar Inc. 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 XOM and CAT 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.
- Momentum82 vs 8XOM +74
- Risk Resilience55 vs 42XOM +13
- Value42 vs 38XOM +4
- Quality52 vs 55Even
4 of 6 evidence groups favor XOM. XOM’s edge is concentrated in momentum and risk resilience.
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 -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.
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
XOM's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — XOM and CAT both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
XOM (Exxon Mobil Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and risk resilience.
CAT (Caterpillar Inc.): the counter-case, on fundamentals, analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 32.4% 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
XOMXOM on the peer-relative Value factor, by 4 points.
Momentum
XOMXOM on the Momentum factor, by 74 points.
Lower downside
XOMXOM on Risk Resilience, by 13 points.
Analyst upside
CATCAT 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 CAT. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | XOM | CAT | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -5.7% | +34.3% | CAT has more room |
| Target dispersion | +56.6% | +47.9% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 9 | 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.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | XOM | CAT |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 2.82% | 7.23% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $3.480 | $4.120 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $4.000 | $5.840 |
| Years increased | 5 | 5 |
| No cut in window | Yes | Yes |
| Cohort rank | #308 | #179 |
CAT grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 7.23% a year against XOM's 2.82%. 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 | 57 vs 36 |
| Fundamentals | CATon balance | revenue growth 37.7% vs 18%; EPS growth 248% vs 41.8%; TTM ROE 12.7% vs 54.1%; gross margin 25.1% vs 33.9%; operating margin 10.7% vs 17.5% — CAT takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | XOM | Value 42 vs 38 |
| Technicals | XOM | Price vs 50-day 8.2% vs -8.4%; vs 200-day 16.8% vs -9.9% |
| Risk Resilience | XOM | Risk Resilience 55 vs 42 |
| Analyst expectations | CAT | Target upside -5.7% vs 34.3% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of XOM and CAT 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 wide at 21 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has swung materially session to session. (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
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20XOM lead: Reversed — CAT led by 2 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; XOM now leads by 21.
- Today
- XOM +21
- 57 vs 36
- 7 sessions ago
- XOM +21
- 57 vs 36
- 30 sessions ago
- CAT +2
- 50 vs 52
- 90 sessions ago
- XOM +4
- 55 vs 51
The lead changed hands 3 times in this window, most recently on Oct 7 when XOM moved ahead of CAT.
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.
6 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
Only XOM
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (0.0%)
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
2 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only CAT
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (3.71%)
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 1 more signal that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active.
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 +0.13%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +2.06%, 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.
- 1CAT closes the Momentum gap — currently 74 points behind, the largest single contributor to XOM's edge.
- 2CAT's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3XOM's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 6 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
CAT leads on balance| Metric | XOM | CAT |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 37.7% | 18% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 248% | 41.8% |
| Gross margin | 25.1% | 33.9% |
| Operating margin | 10.7% | 17.5% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 12.7% | 54.1% |
| Debt to equity | 0.16 | 2.33 |
Performance
XOM leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | XOM | CAT |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 2.2% | -6.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 12.1% | -10.2% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 15.2% | -18.4% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 19.9% | -8.2% |
| Year to date | 46.9% | 26.6% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 60.2% | 35.1% |
Technicals
XOM has the stronger structure| Metric | XOM | CAT |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 83 | 28.6 |
| ADX (14) | 27.8 | 22.1 |
| Price vs 50-day | 8.2% | -8.4% |
| Price vs 200-day | 16.8% | -9.9% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 17.7% | 32.4% |
Risk
XOM is the more resilient| Metric | XOM | CAT |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | -0.67 | 1.8 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.76 | 0.9 |
| Sortino ratio | 2.61 | 1.44 |
| Max drawdown | -20.6% | -31.9% |
| Current drawdown | -0.6% | -31.9% |
| Annualized volatility | 26% | 40.2% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.6% | -4% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, XOM or CAT?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, XOM is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 57 against CAT's 36. The edge comes from momentum and risk resilience. 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 XOM or CAT 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 lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor XOM over CAT?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. XOM leads Momentum by 74 points; XOM leads Risk Resilience by 13 points; XOM leads Value by 4 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, XOM or CAT?
Analyst price targets imply -5.7% upside for XOM and +34.3% for CAT, so the Street currently favors CAT. 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, XOM or CAT?
XOM is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. XOM on the peer-relative Value factor, by 4 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, XOM or CAT?
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, XOM or CAT?
XOM on the Momentum factor, by 74 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, XOM or CAT?
XOM is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. XOM on Risk Resilience, by 13 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 XOM more profitable than CAT?
CAT leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 25.1% vs 33.9%; operating margin 10.7% vs 17.5%; ttm roe 12.7% vs 54.1%.
Is XOM's lead over CAT getting stronger or weaker?
XOM lead: Reversed — CAT led by 2 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; XOM now leads by 21. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has changed hands 3 times in that window, most recently on 2026-10-07, when XOM moved ahead of CAT.
What would change the XOM vs CAT verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: CAT closes the Momentum gap — currently 74 points behind, the largest single contributor to XOM's edge; CAT's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it; XOM's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 6 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 XOM and CAT?
XOM: 6 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. CAT: 2 bullish / 2 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 XOM is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On CAT it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare XOM and CAT 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.