Oil & Gas Exploration & Production
Compare Stocks
5 / 10Stock Comparison
TBN vs RRC vs EQT vs AR vs CNX
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Oil & Gas Exploration & Production
Oil & Gas Exploration & Production
Oil & Gas Exploration & Production
Oil & Gas Exploration & Production
TBN vs RRC vs EQT vs AR vs CNX — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Oil & Gas Exploration & Production | Oil & Gas Exploration & Production | Oil & Gas Exploration & Production | Oil & Gas Exploration & Production | Oil & Gas Exploration & Production |
| Market Cap | $753M | $9.55B | $34.93B | $11.14B | $5.07B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $54K | $3.18B | $10.03B | $5.48B | $2.32B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $-32M | $903M | $3.35B | $962M | $1.18B |
| Gross Margin | -10.5% | 42.2% | 64.0% | 26.0% | 28.7% |
| Operating Margin | -617.2% | 30.6% | 46.7% | 20.9% | 21.4% |
| Forward P/E | — | 9.5x | 11.7x | 8.1x | 12.1x |
| Total Debt | $26M | $1.27B | $7.80B | $5.14B | $2.45B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $39M | $204K | $111M | $210M | $779K |
TBN vs RRC vs EQT vs AR vs CNX — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | Jun 24 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tamboran Resources … (TBN) | 100 | 158.4 | +58.4% |
| Range Resources Cor… (RRC) | 100 | 120.8 | +20.8% |
| EQT Corporation (EQT) | 100 | 151.3 | +51.3% |
| Antero Resources Co… (AR) | 100 | 110.1 | +10.1% |
| CNX Resources Corpo… (CNX) | 100 | 147.0 | +47.0% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: TBN vs RRC vs EQT vs AR vs CNX
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
TBN has the current edge in this matchup, primarily because of its strength in sleep-well-at-night and defensive.
- Lower volatility, beta 0.05, Low D/E 6.8%, current ratio 1.55x
- Beta 0.05, current ratio 1.55x
- Beta 0.05 vs EQT's 0.20, lower leverage
- +69.7% vs AR's -3.9%
Among these 5 stocks, RRC doesn't own a clear edge in any measured category.
EQT is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if income & stability and growth exposure is your priority.
- Dividend streak 4 yrs, beta 0.20, yield 1.1%
- Rev growth 73.7%, EPS growth 7.1%, 3Y rev CAGR -9.3%
- 73.7% revenue growth vs TBN's -7.7%
- 1.1% yield, 4-year raise streak, vs RRC's 0.9%, (3 stocks pay no dividend)
AR is the clearest fit if your priority is value.
- Lower P/E (8.1x vs 12.1x)
CNX ranks third and is worth considering specifically for long-term compounding.
- 158.8% 10Y total return vs EQT's 55.7%
- 50.9% margin vs TBN's -585.8%
- 17.5% ROA vs TBN's -5.3%, ROIC 9.0% vs -9.2%
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 73.7% revenue growth vs TBN's -7.7% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (8.1x vs 12.1x) | |
| Quality / Margins | 50.9% margin vs TBN's -585.8% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.05 vs EQT's 0.20, lower leverage | |
| Dividends | 1.1% yield, 4-year raise streak, vs RRC's 0.9%, (3 stocks pay no dividend) | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +69.7% vs AR's -3.9% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 17.5% ROA vs TBN's -5.3%, ROIC 9.0% vs -9.2% |
TBN vs RRC vs EQT vs AR vs CNX — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
Segment breakdown not available.
TBN vs RRC vs EQT vs AR vs CNX — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 5 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
EQT leads in 2 of 6 categories
AR leads 1 • CNX leads 1 • TBN leads 0 • RRC leads 0 • 2 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
EQT leads this category, winning 4 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
EQT is the larger business by revenue, generating $10.0B annually — 185799.0x TBN's $54,000. CNX is the more profitable business, keeping 50.9% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to TBN's -585.8%. On growth, EQT holds the edge at +39.7% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $54,000 | $3.2B | $10.0B | $5.5B | $2.3B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | -$33M | $1.3B | $7.3B | $1.9B | $1.1B |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | -$32M | $903M | $3.4B | $962M | $1.2B |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | -$96M | $1.3B | $4.1B | -$1.0B | $282M |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | -10.5% | +42.2% | +64.0% | +26.0% | +28.7% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | -617.2% | +30.6% | +46.7% | +20.9% | +21.4% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | -585.8% | +28.4% | +33.4% | +17.5% | +50.9% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | -1786.7% | +40.8% | +40.5% | -18.6% | +12.2% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | — | +22.2% | +39.7% | +33.8% | +28.8% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | — | +2.6% | +5.2% | +160.6% | +2.7% |
Valuation Metrics
AR leads this category, winning 3 of 6 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 9.0x trailing earnings, CNX trades at a 49% valuation discount to AR's 17.7x P/E. On an enterprise value basis, CNX's 5.5x EV/EBITDA is more attractive than AR's 10.1x.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $753M | $9.5B | $34.9B | $11.1B | $5.1B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $740M | $10.8B | $42.6B | $16.1B | $7.5B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | -0.01x | 14.79x | 16.91x | 17.70x | 8.97x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | — | 9.49x | 11.65x | 8.10x | 12.05x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | — | — | — | — |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | — | 8.76x | 7.41x | 10.15x | 5.52x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | — | 3.19x | 3.85x | 2.22x | 2.37x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 1.34x | 2.25x | 1.28x | 1.46x | 1.32x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | — | 16.19x | 12.31x | 8.96x | 9.50x |
Profitability & Efficiency
Evenly matched — TBN and RRC each lead in 3 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
CNX delivers a 27.5% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $27 in annual profit, vs $-6 for TBN. TBN carries lower financial leverage with a 0.07x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to AR's 0.67x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), RRC scores 9/9 vs TBN's 2/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | -6.4% | +20.9% | +12.4% | +12.4% | +27.5% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | -5.3% | +12.4% | +8.2% | +7.0% | +17.5% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | -9.2% | +11.4% | +6.9% | +5.2% | +9.0% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | -10.5% | +13.0% | +8.2% | +6.8% | +10.3% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 2 | 9 | 8 | 8 | 6 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.07x | 0.29x | 0.29x | 0.67x | 0.57x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | -$13M | $1.3B | $7.7B | $4.9B | $2.5B |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $39M | $204,000 | $111M | $210M | $779,000 |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $26M | $1.3B | $7.8B | $5.1B | $2.5B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | -48.11x | 12.73x | 11.47x | 14.47x | 7.11x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
CNX leads this category, winning 3 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in RRC five years ago would be worth $37,006 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $16,386 for TBN. Over the past 12 months, TBN leads with a +69.7% total return vs AR's -3.9%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors CNX at 32.6% vs RRC's 17.7% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | +27.8% | +15.1% | +5.3% | +5.1% | -2.0% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | +69.7% | +11.3% | +6.0% | -3.9% | +15.4% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +63.9% | +62.9% | +79.7% | +71.9% | +133.3% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +63.9% | +270.1% | +180.3% | +226.4% | +159.6% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +63.9% | +0.9% | +55.7% | +43.1% | +158.8% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | +17.9% | +17.7% | +21.6% | +19.8% | +32.6% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — TBN and RRC each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
TBN is the less volatile stock with a 0.05 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than EQT's 0.20 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. RRC currently trades 83.9% from its 52-week high vs TBN's 68.3% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 0.05x | 0.16x | 0.20x | 0.14x | 0.09x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $52.21 | $48.31 | $68.24 | $45.75 | $43.62 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $17.29 | $32.60 | $48.47 | $29.10 | $27.72 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +68.3% | +83.9% | +82.0% | +78.6% | +81.9% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 48.1 | 40.1 | 36.2 | 38.3 | 31.8 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 182K | 3.4M | 7.5M | 5.6M | 1.9M |
Analyst Outlook
EQT leads this category, winning 2 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: TBN as "Buy", RRC as "Hold", EQT as "Buy", AR as "Buy", CNX as "Hold". Consensus price targets imply 36.0% upside for AR (target: $49) vs -26.5% for EQT (target: $41). For income investors, EQT offers the higher dividend yield at 1.11% vs RRC's 0.88%.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Buy | Hold | Buy | Buy | Hold |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $45.00 | $46.57 | $41.11 | $48.89 | $36.17 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 3 | 62 | 45 | 50 | 41 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | — | +0.9% | +1.1% | — | — |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | — | 1 | 4 | 1 | 0 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | — | $0.36 | $0.62 | — | — |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | 0.0% | +2.4% | 0.0% | +1.2% | +10.3% |
EQT leads in 2 of 6 categories (Income & Cash Flow, Analyst Outlook). AR leads in 1 (Valuation Metrics). 2 tied.
TBN vs RRC vs EQT vs AR vs CNX: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is TBN or RRC or EQT or AR or CNX a better buy right now?
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. 1x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Tamboran Resources Corp (TBN) a "Buy" — based on 3 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.
02Which has the better valuation — TBN or RRC or EQT or AR or CNX?
On trailing P/E, CNX Resources Corporation (CNX) is the cheapest at 9.
0x versus Antero Resources Corporation at 17. 7x. On forward P/E, Antero Resources Corporation is actually cheaper at 8. 1x — notably different from the trailing picture, reflecting expected earnings growth.
03Which is the better long-term investment — TBN or RRC or EQT or AR or CNX?
Over the past 5 years, Range Resources Corporation (RRC) delivered a total return of +270.
1%, compared to +63. 9% for Tamboran Resources Corp (TBN). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: CNX returned +158. 8% versus RRC's +0. 9%. Past returns do not guarantee future results, and the stock with the higher historical return may already have its best growth priced in.
04Which is safer — TBN or RRC or EQT or AR or CNX?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Tamboran Resources Corp (TBN) is the lower-risk stock at 0.
05β versus EQT Corporation's 0. 20β — meaning EQT is approximately 333% more volatile than TBN relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Tamboran Resources Corp (TBN) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 7% versus 67% for Antero Resources Corporation — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — TBN or RRC or EQT or AR or CNX?
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 -144650. 7% for Tamboran Resources Corp. 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.
06Which has better profit margins — TBN or RRC or EQT or AR or CNX?
CNX Resources Corporation (CNX) is the more profitable company, earning 29.
6% net margin versus -585. 8% for Tamboran Resources Corp — 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 -617. 2% for TBN. 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.
07Is TBN or RRC or EQT or AR or CNX more undervalued right now?
On forward earnings alone, Antero Resources Corporation (AR) trades at 8.
1x forward P/E versus 12. 1x for CNX Resources Corporation — 4. 0x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for AR: 36. 0% to $48. 89.
08Which pays a better dividend — TBN or RRC or EQT or AR or CNX?
In this comparison, EQT (1.
1% yield), RRC (0. 9% yield) pay a dividend. TBN, AR, CNX do not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
09Is TBN or RRC or EQT or AR or CNX better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, Range Resources Corporation (RRC) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0.
16), 0. 9% yield). Both have compounded well over 10 years (RRC: +0. 9%, AR: +43. 1%), 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.
10What are the main differences between TBN and RRC and EQT and AR and CNX?
Both stocks operate in the Energy sector, making this a peer-level intra-sector comparison — the same macro tailwinds and headwinds will affect both.
In terms of investment character: TBN is a small-cap quality compounder stock; RRC is a small-cap high-growth stock; EQT is a mid-cap high-growth stock; AR is a mid-cap high-growth stock; CNX is a small-cap high-growth stock. RRC, EQT pay a dividend while TBN, AR, CNX 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.
Find Stocks Like These
Explore pre-built screens for each stock's profile, or build a custom screen to find stocks that outperform all of them.
You Might Also Compare
Based on how these companies actually compete and overlap — not just which sector they're filed under.