RRC vs CNX vs EQT vs AR

For growth investors, EQT Corporation (EQT) is the stronger pick with 73.

7% revenue growth year-over-year, versus 21. 7% for Antero Resources Corporation (AR). CNX Resources Corporation (CNX) offers the better valuation at 9. 0x trailing P/E (12. 4x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate EQT Corporation (EQT) a "Buy" — based on 45 analyst ratings — the highest consensus in this comparison. The "better buy" depends entirely on your goals: growth investors should weight revenue trajectory, value investors should weight P/E and PEG, and income investors should weight dividend yield and streak.

On trailing P/E, CNX Resources Corporation (CNX) is the cheapest at 9.

0x versus Antero Resources Corporation at 17. 9x. On forward P/E, Antero Resources Corporation is actually cheaper at 8. 3x — notably different from the trailing picture, reflecting expected earnings growth.

Over the past 5 years, Range Resources Corporation (RRC) delivered a total return of +269.

4%, compared to +161. 3% for CNX Resources Corporation (CNX). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: CNX returned +160. 3% versus RRC's +1. 7%. Past returns do not guarantee future results, and the stock with the higher historical return may already have its best growth priced in.

By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), CNX Resources Corporation (CNX) is the lower-risk stock at 0.

12β versus Antero Resources Corporation's 0. 24β — meaning AR is approximately 101% more volatile than CNX relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, EQT Corporation (EQT) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 29% versus 67% for Antero Resources Corporation — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.

By revenue growth (latest reported year), EQT Corporation (EQT) is pulling ahead at 73.

7% versus 21. 7% for Antero Resources Corporation (AR). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Antero Resources Corporation grew EPS 1028% year-over-year, compared to 151. 4% for Range Resources Corporation. Over a 3-year CAGR, EQT leads at -9. 3% annualised revenue growth. Higher growth typically commands a higher valuation multiple — check whether the premium P/E or P/S is justified by the growth rate using the PEG ratio.

CNX Resources Corporation (CNX) is the more profitable company, earning 29.

6% net margin versus 12. 7% for Antero Resources Corporation — meaning it keeps 29. 6% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: CNX leads at 36. 8% versus 16. 5% for AR. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — EQT leads at 48. 9%, reflecting greater pricing power or product mix advantage. Stronger margins indicate durable pricing power, lower cost of revenue, or higher mix of software/services. They are one of the clearest signs of business quality.

On forward earnings alone, Antero Resources Corporation (AR) trades at 8.

3x forward P/E versus 12. 4x for CNX Resources Corporation — 4. 1x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for AR: 34. 4% to $48. 89.

In this comparison, EQT (1.

1% yield), RRC (0. 9% yield) pay a dividend. CNX, AR do not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.

For long-horizon retirement investors, EQT Corporation (EQT) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0.

23), 1. 1% yield). Both have compounded well over 10 years (EQT: +56. 5%, AR: +44. 8%), confirming both are viable long-term holds — but the lower-volatility option typically results in less emotional selling during corrections. Retirement portfolios generally favour predictability over maximum returns. Consult a financial advisor before making allocation decisions.

Both stocks operate in the Energy sector, making this a peer-level intra-sector comparison — the same macro tailwinds and headwinds will affect both.

RRC, EQT pay a dividend while CNX, AR do not, making them suitable for different income and tax situations. These fundamental differences mean investors should not choose between them on a single metric — the "better stock" depends entirely on which of these characteristics aligns with your investment strategy.