XOM vs CVX Stock Comparison
CVX currently leads XOM in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 59 vs 57. The clearest difference is risk resilience.
What is the main difference between XOM and CVX?
CVX leads the current stock comparison as Chevron Corporation, with the clearest separation coming from risk resilience and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Exxon Mobil Corporation vs Chevron Corporation
CVX leads
CVX leads by 2 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience, having only recently taken the lead back from XOM.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support CVX, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Exxon Mobil Corporation
Chevron Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors CVX over XOM, 59 versus 57 as of Oct 21, 2026. CVX's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience. CVX also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor CVX today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. CVX lead: Reversed — XOM led by 1 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; CVX now leads by 2.
Compare Exxon Mobil Corporation and Chevron 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 XOM and CVX 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.
- Risk Resilience55 vs 63CVX +8
- Momentum82 vs 84Even
- Quality52 vs 52Even
- Value42 vs 42Even
3 of 6 evidence groups favor CVX. CVX’s edge is concentrated in 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 7 active signals are unchanged.
CVX's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — XOM and CVX both carry a full feed there.
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
CVXCVX on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
XOMXOM on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
CVXCVX on Risk Resilience, by 8 points.
Analyst upside
EvenAnalyst targets are level or not covered for both names.
AIQ vs Wall Street
Where the systematic read and the analyst consensus line up — and where they do not.
| Measure | XOM | CVX | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -5.7% | -4.8% | Level |
| Target dispersion | +56.6% | +74.1% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 9 | 12 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | XOM | CVX |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 2.82% | 5.80% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $3.480 | $5.160 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $4.000 | $6.840 |
| Years increased | 5 | 5 |
| No cut in window | Yes | Yes |
| Cohort rank | #308 | #219 |
CVX grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 5.80% 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
3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor CVX. 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 | 57 vs 59 |
| Fundamentals | CVXon balance | revenue growth 37.7% vs 41.3%; EPS growth 248% vs 4.5%; TTM ROE 12.7% vs 11%; gross margin 25.1% vs 31%; operating margin 10.7% vs 15.8% — CVX takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | Even | Value 42 vs 42 |
| Technicals | CVX | Price vs 50-day 8.2% vs 8.8%; vs 200-day 16.8% vs 18.4% |
| Risk Resilience | CVX | Risk Resilience 55 vs 63 |
| Analyst expectations | Even | Target upside -5.7% vs -4.8% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of XOM and CVX 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 2 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (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)
- Analyst targets on the leader are widely dispersed. (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 CVX.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20CVX lead: Reversed — XOM led by 1 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; CVX now leads by 2.
- Today
- CVX +2
- 57 vs 59
- 7 sessions ago
- CVX +1
- 57 vs 58
- 30 sessions ago
- XOM +1
- 50 vs 49
- 90 sessions ago
- Level
- 55 vs 55
The lead changed hands 3 times in this window, most recently on Oct 9 when CVX moved ahead of XOM.
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.
XOM and CVX carry the same 7 signals, so the signals do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, Keltner Channel Breakout, RSI Overbought, EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish, 52-Week High Proximity, Uptrend Structure Active, MACD Bullish Crossover.
CVX 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 +0.47%, 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.
- 1XOM closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 8 points behind, the largest single contributor to CVX's edge.
- 2XOM's RSI Overbought resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 3CVX'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
CVX leads on balance| Metric | XOM | CVX |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 37.7% | 41.3% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 248% | 4.5% |
| Gross margin | 25.1% | 31% |
| Operating margin | 10.7% | 15.8% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 12.7% | 11% |
| Debt to equity | 0.16 | 0.2 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | XOM | CVX |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 2.2% | 3.7% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 12.1% | 11.5% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 15.2% | 17% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 19.9% | 21.4% |
| Year to date | 46.9% | 45.5% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 60.2% | 48.8% |
Technicals
CVX has the stronger structure| Metric | XOM | CVX |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 83 | 81.3 |
| ADX (14) | 27.8 | 24.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | 8.2% | 8.8% |
| Price vs 200-day | 16.8% | 18.4% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 17.7% | 19.3% |
Risk
CVX is the more resilient| Metric | XOM | CVX |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | -0.67 | -0.6 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.76 | 1.58 |
| Sortino ratio | 2.61 | 2.35 |
| Max drawdown | -20.6% | -21.5% |
| Current drawdown | -0.6% | 0% |
| Annualized volatility | 26% | 24.1% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.6% | -2.3% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, XOM or CVX?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, CVX is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 59 against XOM's 57. The edge comes from 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 CVX the better buy right now?
CVX carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor CVX over XOM?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. CVX leads Risk Resilience by 8 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, XOM or CVX?
Analyst price targets imply -5.7% upside for XOM and -4.8% for CVX. 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, XOM or CVX?
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, XOM or CVX?
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 CVX?
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, XOM or CVX?
CVX is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. CVX on Risk Resilience, by 8 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 CVX?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 25.1% vs 31%; operating margin 10.7% vs 15.8%; ttm roe 12.7% vs 11%. XOM leads on one measure and CVX 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 CVX's lead over XOM getting stronger or weaker?
CVX lead: Reversed — XOM led by 1 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; CVX now leads by 2. 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 2026-10-09, when CVX moved ahead of XOM.
What would change the XOM vs CVX verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: XOM closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 8 points behind, the largest single contributor to CVX's edge; XOM's RSI Overbought resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it; CVX'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 CVX?
XOM: 6 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. CVX: 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 XOM is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On CVX it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare XOM and CVX 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.