Compare StocksCOP vs EOG

ConocoPhillips (COP) vs EOG Resources, Inc. (EOG): Which Is the Better Buy in 2026?

As of 2026-08-03, COP is fairly valued at $120, with a DCF intrinsic value of $113 and a margin of safety of -7%. EOG is fairly valued at $149, with an intrinsic value of $149 and a margin of safety of -0%. Of the two, EOG has the wider margin of safety.

COP
ConocoPhillips
$120.48
VS
EOG
EOG Resources, Inc.
$148.69

Rewards

COP
    EOG
    • EOG Resources, Inc. has maintained ROIC above 10% for 4 consecutive years, suggesting solid business economics.
    • Gross margin of 62.0% indicates strong pricing power — typical of businesses with significant intellectual property or brand strength.

    Risks

    COP
    • ROIC has declined by 17.9 percentage points over the past 4 years, which may signal competitive erosion.
    • Buybacks have been poorly timed — 3 out of 4 years involved repurchases at relatively expensive valuations.
    • Trailing P/E of 20.4x is 69% above the historical average of 12.1x — the stock trades at a premium to its own history.
    EOG
    • Trailing P/E of 14.6x is 42% above the historical average of 10.3x — the stock trades at a premium to its own history.
    • 8 insider sales with no purchases over the past 12 months — a persistent pattern of insider selling.
    • Free cash flow has declined at a 17.3% CAGR over the past 4 years — a concerning trend.

    Key Valuation Metrics

    Learn more →
    COP
    EOG
    Valuation
    $7.24B
    Free Cash Flow
    $2.86B
    4.93%
    FCF Yield
    3.62%
    20.42
    Trailing P/E
    14.62
    13.38
    Forward P/E
    10.12
    Quality & Moat
    11.77%
    ROIC
    17.99%
    11.28%
    ROE
    18.20%
    45.59%
    Gross Margin
    61.99%
    1.02
    PEG Ratio
    1.19
    Balance Sheet Safety
    0.26
    Net Debt / Equity
    0.14
    N/A
    Interest Coverage
    N/A
    0.73
    Net Debt / EBITDA
    0.35
    2.79%
    Dividend Yield
    2.74%
    COP: 3Ties: 2EOG: 7
    COPEOG

    Historical Fundamentals

    Learn more →
    COP

    Price ÷ Earnings Per Share — how many years of current earnings you're paying for at today's price. Lower P/E may indicate undervaluation. The dashed forward point is the forward P/E — today's price ÷ analyst consensus EPS.

    EOG

    Price ÷ Earnings Per Share — how many years of current earnings you're paying for at today's price. Lower P/E may indicate undervaluation. The dashed forward point is the forward P/E — today's price ÷ analyst consensus EPS.

    Price ÷ Earnings Per Share — how many years of current earnings you're paying for at today's price. Lower P/E may indicate undervaluation. The dashed forward point is the forward P/E — today's price ÷ analyst consensus EPS.

    $1 Retained Earnings Test

    Learn more →
    COP
    $-1.99
    created per $1 retained over 3 years
    Market Cap Declined
    Σ Retained
    $14.97B
    Δ Market Cap
    $-29.73B
    Buffett's "$1 Test": For every $1 of earnings retained, has management created at least $1 of market value?
    > $1 created per $1 retained = Value Creator · < $1 created = Value Destroyer
    EOG
    $-1.73
    created per $1 retained over 3 years
    Market Cap Declined
    Σ Retained
    $11.34B
    Δ Market Cap
    $-19.66B
    Buffett's "$1 Test": For every $1 of earnings retained, has management created at least $1 of market value?
    > $1 created per $1 retained = Value Creator · < $1 created = Value Destroyer

    Buffett's "$1 Test": For every $1 of earnings retained, has management created at least $1 of market value?
    > $1 created per $1 retained = Value Creator · < $1 created = Value Destroyer

    Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) Analysis

    Learn more →
    COP
    39.4% Overvalued
    Price is 39.4% above estimated fair value
    Current Price: $120.48
    Fair Value: $86.45
    Strongly undervalued
    Undervalued
    Fairly valued
    Overvalued
    Strongly overvalued
    EOG
    0.0% Overvalued
    Price is 0.0% above estimated fair value
    Current Price: $148.69
    Fair Value: $148.65
    Strongly undervalued
    Undervalued
    Fairly valued
    Overvalued
    Strongly overvalued

    Reverse DCF — Market-Implied Growth

    Learn more →
    COP

    What growth rate is the market pricing in at $120?

    +8.1%
    Market-Implied Owner Earnings Growth
    Standard FCF implies +9.4%

    The market implies +8.1% Owner Earnings growth, above historical trends.

    Standard FCF implies a demanding +9.4%, reflecting heavy growth investment.

    EOG

    What growth rate is the market pricing in at $149?

    +12.8%
    Market-Implied FCF Growth Rate

    Market pricing in significantly higher growth than history — aggressive.

    Economic Moat Score

    Learn more →
    COP
    38/100
    No Moat
    70+ Wide · 40-69 Narrow · <40 None

    No durable moat detected, though roic consistency shows some competitive positioning. The business lacks consistent evidence of sustainable advantages.

    Composite score measuring competitive advantage durability across four dimensions: returns above cost of capital, pricing power stability, revenue predictability, and capital efficiency. Based on 4 years of fundamental data.
    EOG
    53/100
    Narrow Moat
    70+ Wide · 40-69 Narrow · <40 None

    Narrow moat with roic consistency as the key competitive advantage. Improving reinvestment efficiency would strengthen the moat.

    Composite score measuring competitive advantage durability across four dimensions: returns above cost of capital, pricing power stability, revenue predictability, and capital efficiency. Based on 4 years of fundamental data.

    Forensic Accounting

    Learn more →
    COP
    -2.89
    Unlikely Manipulator
    Above -1.78 = likely manipulator · -2.22 to -1.78 = grey zone

    M-Score Trend

    Beneish's 8-variable model estimates the probability of earnings manipulation. An M-Score above -1.78 signals elevated risk — companies in this range have historically been 3-5× more likely to be manipulating earnings. Scores between -2.22 and -1.78 fall in a grey zone warranting further investigation.
    EOG
    -3.06
    Unlikely Manipulator
    Above -1.78 = likely manipulator · -2.22 to -1.78 = grey zone

    M-Score Trend

    Beneish's 8-variable model estimates the probability of earnings manipulation. An M-Score above -1.78 signals elevated risk — companies in this range have historically been 3-5× more likely to be manipulating earnings. Scores between -2.22 and -1.78 fall in a grey zone warranting further investigation.

    Beneish's 8-variable model estimates the probability of earnings manipulation. An M-Score above -1.78 signals elevated risk — companies in this range have historically been 3-5× more likely to be manipulating earnings. Scores between -2.22 and -1.78 fall in a grey zone warranting further investigation.

    Ownership Breakdown

    Learn more →
    COP
    Insiders 0.1%Institutions 87.3%Retail & Other 12.6%
    No. of Institutional Holders3,062
    High insider ownership aligns management incentives with shareholders — a key signal in Buffett-style analysis. Institutional concentration can indicate smart-money conviction but also crowding risk.
    EOG
    Insiders 0.3%Institutions 97.6%Retail & Other 2.1%
    No. of Institutional Holders2,093
    High insider ownership aligns management incentives with shareholders — a key signal in Buffett-style analysis. Institutional concentration can indicate smart-money conviction but also crowding risk.

    High insider ownership aligns management incentives with shareholders. Institutional concentration can indicate smart-money conviction but also crowding risk.

    Insider Buying Activity

    Learn more →
    COP
    0
    Buys (3M)
    1
    Buys (12M)
    Total value (12M): $500,000
    MCRAVEN WILLIAM H.
    Director
    $500,000
    @ $86.69 · 2025-11-10
    JOHNSON KIRK L
    Officer
    $499,472
    @ $94.24 · 2025-06-16
    MURTI ARJUN N
    Director
    $239,675
    @ $95.87 · 2024-12-20
    WALKER R A
    Director
    $1.02M
    @ $97.80 · 2024-12-17
    Open market purchases · includes direct & indirect ownership · excludes option exercises
    EOG
    0
    Buys (3M)
    0
    Buys (12M)
    LEITZELL JEFFREY R
    Chief Operating Officer
    $755.00
    @ $107.86 · 2025-05-07
    Open market purchases · includes direct & indirect ownership · excludes option exercises

    Open market purchases · includes direct & indirect ownership · excludes option exercises.

    Insider Selling Activity

    Learn more →
    COP
    1
    Sells (3M)
    12
    Sells (12M)
    Total value (12M): $127.52M
    MULLIGAN SHARMILA
    Director
    $234,906
    @ $119.00 · 2026-06-10
    ROSE KELLY BRUNETTI
    General Counsel
    $1.00M
    @ $130.03 · 2026-03-24
    OLDS NICHOLAS G
    Officer
    $888,651
    @ $127.06 · 2026-03-23
    LANCE RYAN MICHAEL
    Chief Executive Officer
    $64.49M
    @ $127.26 · 2026-03-20
    LUNDQUIST ANDREW D
    Officer
    $4.13M
    @ $119.68 · 2026-03-13
    HRAP HEATHER GRACE
    Officer
    $317,631
    @ $119.68 · 2026-03-13
    OLDS NICHOLAS G
    Officer
    $1.73M
    @ $119.36 · 2026-03-12
    HAYNES-WELSH KONTESSA S.
    Officer
    $1.24M
    @ $120.07 · 2026-03-12
    OLDS NICHOLAS G
    Officer
    $1.41M
    @ $116.37 · 2026-03-11
    ROSE KELLY BRUNETTI
    General Counsel
    $1.00M
    @ $118.04 · 2026-03-09
    LEACH TIMOTHY ALLEN
    Director
    $4.75M
    @ $118.79 · 2026-03-06
    LANCE RYAN MICHAEL
    Chief Executive Officer
    $46.32M
    @ $92.50 · 2025-12-19
    LEACH TIMOTHY ALLEN
    Director
    $6.00M
    @ $108.11 · 2024-08-13
    Direct ownership only · excludes indirect, option exercises, planned (10b5-1) sales & derivatives
    EOG
    1
    Sells (3M)
    8
    Sells (12M)
    Total value (12M): $2.81M
    CRISP CHARLES RICHARD
    Director
    $256,953
    @ $136.17 · 2026-05-28
    LEITZELL JEFFREY R
    Chief Operating Officer
    $856,523
    @ $150.32 · 2026-03-31
    JANSSEN ANN D
    Chief Financial Officer
    $348,814
    @ $134.31 · 2026-03-12
    LEITZELL JEFFREY R
    Chief Operating Officer
    $484,535
    @ $128.39 · 2026-03-03
    LEITZELL JEFFREY R
    Chief Operating Officer
    $250,000
    @ $125.00 · 2026-02-19
    LEITZELL JEFFREY R
    Chief Operating Officer
    $211,360
    @ $105.68 · 2025-12-31
    LEITZELL JEFFREY R
    Chief Operating Officer
    $211,662
    @ $112.05 · 2025-09-30
    CRISP CHARLES RICHARD
    Director
    $190,657
    @ $119.99 · 2025-08-15
    LEITZELL JEFFREY R
    Chief Operating Officer
    $472,857
    @ $119.65 · 2025-07-01
    LEITZELL JEFFREY R
    Chief Operating Officer
    $515,772
    @ $127.76 · 2025-04-01
    LEITZELL JEFFREY R
    Chief Operating Officer
    $483,560
    @ $120.89 · 2024-12-31
    CLARK JANET F
    Director
    $76,867
    @ $135.33 · 2024-11-19
    DONALDSON MICHAEL P
    General Counsel
    $1.43M
    @ $129.50 · 2024-08-26
    CRISP CHARLES RICHARD
    Director
    $816,405
    @ $125.60 · 2024-08-21
    LEITZELL JEFFREY R
    Chief Operating Officer
    $505,920
    @ $126.48 · 2024-08-09
    Direct ownership only · excludes indirect, option exercises, planned (10b5-1) sales & derivatives

    Direct ownership only · excludes indirect, option exercises, planned (10b5-1) sales & derivatives.

    🎭 Mr. Market's Mood

    Learn more →
    COP
    FearGreed
    😏Greed(61/100)

    "Market is optimistic — be cautious and ensure you have a margin of safety"

    Composite sentiment score based on 6 market signals. Inspired by Buffett's "Mr. Market" allegory — fear = potential opportunity, greed = potential risk. Must be used alongside fundamental analysis, not in isolation.
    EOG
    FearGreed
    😏Greed(67/100)

    "Market is optimistic — be cautious and ensure you have a margin of safety"

    Composite sentiment score based on 6 market signals. Inspired by Buffett's "Mr. Market" allegory — fear = potential opportunity, greed = potential risk. Must be used alongside fundamental analysis, not in isolation.

    Composite sentiment score based on market signals. Inspired by Buffett’s "Mr. Market" allegory — fear = potential opportunity, greed = potential risk. Must be used alongside fundamental analysis, not in isolation.

    ⚖️ Buffett Signal

    Learn more →
    COP
    Awaiting DCF Data

    The Buffett Signal cross-references market sentiment with DCF valuation. Configure the DCF Analysis above to generate a signal.

    DCF Margin of Safety: N/AMr. Market's Mood: Greed (61)
    EOG
    Awaiting DCF Data

    The Buffett Signal cross-references market sentiment with DCF valuation. Configure the DCF Analysis above to generate a signal.

    DCF Margin of Safety: N/AMr. Market's Mood: Greed (67)
    View COP Full AnalysisView EOG Full Analysis

    Frequently Asked Questions: COP vs EOG

    Is ConocoPhillips or EOG Resources, Inc. more undervalued in 2026?

    Based on our discounted cash flow model, EOG trades at a -0.0% margin of safety (intrinsic value $149 vs. price $149), compared to COP's -6.6% margin of safety (intrinsic $113 vs. $120).

    Which stock has a wider economic moat, ConocoPhillips or EOG Resources, Inc.?

    EOG scores 53/100 (Narrow moat), while COP scores 38/100 (None moat). The moat score measures competitive advantage durability across ROIC consistency, margin stability, revenue predictability, and reinvestment efficiency.

    Is ConocoPhillips in financial distress?

    COP's Altman Z-Score of 2.8 places it in the Grey zone, signaling elevated bankruptcy risk. EOG scores 3.3 (Safe zone). The Altman Z-Score is a five-factor model that predicts insolvency within two years; scores below 1.81 indicate significant distress.

    Which company has better free cash flow, ConocoPhillips or EOG Resources, Inc.?

    ConocoPhillips (COP) generates a 4.9% free cash flow yield, compared to EOG Resources, Inc.'s 3.6%. A higher FCF yield means the business converts more of its market value into cash that can be returned to shareholders or reinvested.

    Which stock has higher return on invested capital, ConocoPhillips or EOG Resources, Inc.?

    EOG earns 18.0% ROIC versus COP's 11.8%. A higher ROIC means the company generates more profit per dollar of capital employed, a hallmark of durable competitive advantage in Buffett-style analysis.

    Which dividend is safer, ConocoPhillips's or EOG Resources, Inc.'s?

    COP's dividend earns a safety score of 78/100 (Safe), compared to EOG's 73/100 (Safe). COP has raised its dividend for 1 consecutive years.