EQT Corporation (EQT) vs Diamondback Energy, Inc. (FANG)
EQT leads on 12 of 16 compared metrics.
A side-by-side comparison of EQT Corporation and Diamondback Energy, Inc. across valuation, profitability, dividends, and growth — built entirely from reported fundamentals, as of June 27, 2026. The ● marks the stronger figure on each row (cheaper multiple, higher margin/return).
Total return — EQT vs FANG
growth of $100 · last 14yEQT +59.1%FANG +928.1%FANG compounded faster
Log scale — wide-divergence pair
EQT FANG
EQT vs FANG: by the numbers
- •FANG is the larger company ($50.61B vs $32.96B market cap).
- •EQT trades at the lower earnings multiple (9.76 vs 211.66 P/E).
- •EQT converts more revenue to profit (33.40% vs 2.65% net margin).
- •FANG grew revenue faster over the past five years (37.44% vs 26.65% CAGR).
- •FANG pays the higher dividend yield (2.45% vs 1.25%).
Which is better, EQT or FANG?
Metric tally: EQT 12 · FANG 4It depends on what you're optimizing for:
ValueEQT(lower P/E)
GrowthFANG(faster 5Y revenue CAGR)
IncomeFANG(higher dividend yield)
QualityEQT(higher ROIC)
Metrics side by side
Valuation
| Metric | EQT | FANG |
|---|---|---|
| P/E ratio | 9.76● | 211.66 |
| Forward P/E | 11.56 | — |
| P/S ratio | 3.28● | 3.35 |
| P/B ratio | 1.31● | 1.39 |
| PEG ratio | 0.03● | 8.32 |
| EV / EBITDA | 5.24● | 7.51 |
| FCF yield | 12.33%● | 3.13% |
Profitability
| Metric | EQT | FANG |
|---|---|---|
| Gross margin | 48.86%● | 41.83% |
| Operating margin | 34.70%● | 32.73% |
| Net margin | 33.40%● | 2.65% |
| ROE | 13.34%● | 1.10% |
| ROIC | 6.18%● | 6.00% |
Dividends
| Metric | EQT | FANG |
|---|---|---|
| Dividend yield | 1.25% | 2.45%● |
| Payout ratio | 19.82% | 76.79% |
Growth (annualized)
| Metric | EQT | FANG |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue CAGR (5Y) | 26.65% | 37.44%● |
| EPS CAGR (5Y) | -10.45% | 25.44%● |
| FCF CAGR (5Y) | 58.98% | 91.40%● |
| Total return CAGR (5Y) | 20.54%● | 18.00% |
Frequently asked
- Which is better, EQT or FANG?
- It depends on your goal. value: EQT (lower P/E); growth: FANG (faster 5Y revenue CAGR); income: FANG (higher dividend yield); quality: EQT (higher ROIC). Across all compared metrics, EQT leads 12 to 4.
- Is EQT or FANG cheaper?
- On trailing earnings, EQT is cheaper: EQT trades at a 9.76 P/E and FANG at 211.66.
- Which has grown faster, EQT or FANG?
- Over the past five years, FANG grew revenue faster — EQT at a 26.65% CAGR versus FANG at 37.44%.
- Does EQT or FANG pay a bigger dividend?
- EQT yields 1.25% and FANG yields 2.45% based on trailing dividends and the latest price.
- Is EQT or FANG more profitable?
- EQT runs the higher net margin — EQT at 33.40% versus FANG at 2.65%.
- Which has been the better investment, EQT or FANG?
- Over the past 10-year, FANG delivered the higher annualized total return — EQT at 3.16% versus FANG at 10.32%. Past performance doesn't predict future results.
Go deeper
Dig into the metrics
EQT P/E ratioDiamondback Energy P/E ratioEQT dividend yieldDiamondback Energy dividend yieldEQT ROEDiamondback Energy ROEEQT operating marginDiamondback Energy operating marginEQT revenue growthDiamondback Energy revenue growthEQT free cash flowDiamondback Energy free cash flow
EQT & Diamondback Energy appear in these rankings
Figures are sourced from reported fundamentals and the latest end-of-day price. This comparison is informational only and is not investment advice. Past performance does not predict future results. See our methodology. Compiled by TGMCharts Research · data verified June 27, 2026.