CQP
Price
$64.71
Change
-$1.33 (-2.01%)
Updated
Aug 7 closing price
Capitalization
31.32B
81 days until earnings call
Intraday BUY SELL Signals
EPD
Price
$37.75
Change
-$0.30 (-0.79%)
Updated
Aug 7 closing price
Capitalization
81.67B
86 days until earnings call
Intraday BUY SELL Signals
GLP
Price
$50.18
Change
+$1.66 (+3.42%)
Updated
Aug 7 closing price
Capitalization
1.7B
89 days until earnings call
Intraday BUY SELL Signals
Interact to see
Advertisement

CQP or EPD or GLP

CQP vs EPD vs GLP Comparison Chart in %
loading
loading
loading
View a ticker or compare two or three
A.I.Advisor
Aug 03, 2026

Which Stock Would AI Choose? Cheniere Energy Partners, L.P. (CQP) vs. Enterprise Products Partners L.P. (EPD) vs. Global Partners LP (GLP) Stock Comparison

Key Takeaways

  • CQP focuses on liquefied natural gas (LNG) infrastructure with the Sabine Pass terminal, while EPD operates a diversified midstream network across natural gas liquids (NGLs), crude oil, and petrochemicals, and GLP emphasizes wholesale and retail distribution of refined petroleum products through terminals and fueling locations.
  • Recent earnings showed strength across the group: EPD reported record Q2 2026 results with net income of $1.8 billion and adjusted EBITDA of $2.8 billion, CQP beat Q1 2026 estimates with revenue of $3.6 billion, and GLP posted higher gross profit of $332.2 million in Q1 2026.
  • Year-to-date performance has been comparable, with each stock advancing roughly 22% amid broader energy sector activity, though one-year returns vary with EPD leading at approximately 31%.
  • Distribution policies remain a focus, with EPD raising its quarterly payout by 2.8% to $0.56 per unit and maintaining strong coverage, CQP reaffirming 2026 guidance of $3.10–$3.40 per unit, and GLP declaring $0.765 per unit.
  • Sector exposure differs markedly: CQP is tied to global LNG export dynamics, EPD benefits from North American midstream volume growth, and GLP is more sensitive to refined product demand in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic regions.
  • Valuation and momentum reflect relative stability, with limited volatility in recent market activity driven by operational execution rather than external shocks.

Introduction

Master limited partnerships (MLPs) in the energy sector offer investors exposure to infrastructure assets that generate fee-based cash flows with relatively predictable distributions. CQP, EPD, and GLP represent distinct segments of the energy value chain—LNG export terminals, diversified midstream pipelines and processing, and refined products distribution, respectively. This comparison is relevant for income-oriented investors and traders seeking to evaluate relative performance, distribution sustainability, and sector positioning within the current energy market environment.

CQP Overview and Recent Performance

Cheniere Energy Partners, L.P. owns and operates the Sabine Pass LNG terminal in Louisiana, providing liquefaction and export services for natural gas. In recent weeks, the partnership reported Q1 2026 results that exceeded analyst estimates on both revenue and earnings, with revenue reaching $3.6 billion. Management reaffirmed full-year 2026 distribution guidance in the $3.10–$3.40 per unit range. Stock performance reflected broader LNG market dynamics, with shares trading near the upper end of their recent range amid ongoing expansion activities, including an engineering, procurement, and construction contract for the Sabine Pass project.

EPD Overview and Recent Performance

Enterprise Products Partners L.P. provides midstream services including gathering, processing, transportation, and storage of natural gas, NGLs, crude oil, and petrochemicals across an extensive North American pipeline network. The partnership delivered record Q2 2026 financial results, with net income attributable to common unitholders of $1.8 billion and adjusted EBITDA of $2.8 billion. Operational distributable cash flow reached $2.3 billion, supporting a 2.8% distribution increase to $0.56 per unit quarterly. Shares advanced in line with strong volume trends and capital project execution during recent market activity.

GLP Overview and Recent Performance

Global Partners LP operates liquid energy terminals and supplies gasoline, distillates, and related fuels to wholesale, retail, and commercial customers primarily in the Northeast, Mid-Atlantic, and Texas regions. Q1 2026 results showed gross profit rising to $332.2 million from the prior-year period, supported by product margin expansion. The partnership maintains a quarterly distribution of $0.765 per unit. Stock movement in recent weeks aligned with refined product demand patterns and terminal utilization rates within its core geographic markets.

Trending AI Robots

Tickeron’s Trending AI Robots page highlights a curated selection of AI trading bots from hundreds available on the platform. These bots trade thousands of different tickers using varied strategies, timeframes, and performance metrics. Only those demonstrating the strongest suitability for prevailing market conditions are featured in the trending section. The platform provides transparent statistics on historical performance ranges, win rates, and drawdowns to help users evaluate fit. All bots operate with distinct approaches tailored to different market environments. Review the full selection on the Trending AI Robots page for additional details.

Head-to-Head Comparison

Business models create clear contrasts: CQP derives revenue primarily from long-term LNG liquefaction contracts tied to global energy trade, EPD generates fee income from a broad midstream asset base with volume-driven growth, and GLP focuses on downstream marketing and logistics of refined products with greater exposure to retail margins. Growth drivers differ accordingly, with CQP linked to LNG export expansion, EPD to North American production volumes, and GLP to regional fuel demand. Recent momentum favored EPD following its record quarterly results, while CQP benefited from project announcements and GLP from margin improvements. Risk factors include commodity price sensitivity for all three, with CQP more exposed to international LNG dynamics, EPD to regulatory and volume risks, and GLP to regional economic conditions. Valuation sensitivity remains moderate across the group given MLP structures and distribution focus, supporting relatively stable market sentiment in recent activity.

Tickeron AI Verdict

Based on observable factors such as recent earnings consistency, distribution coverage ratios, and operational momentum, Tickeron’s AI may currently favor EPD for its record Q2 results and robust cash flow generation relative to peers. This assessment remains probabilistic and reflects current data trends rather than a guarantee of future performance.

Disclaimer

The information on this webpage is provided for general informational and educational purposes only and is not intended as investment advice, a recommendation to purchase or sell any security, or an offer or solicitation related to investments. It does not consider your personal financial situation, goals, or risk profile, and all investing carries inherent risks, including the possibility of losing your entire investment. For more details, please review our full disclaimer.

Disclaimers and Limitations

Interact to see
Advertisement
COMPARISON
Comparison
Aug 09, 2026
Stock price -- (CQP: $64.71EPD: $37.75GLP: $50.18)
Brand notoriety: CQP and GLP are not notable and EPD is notable
The three companies represent the Oil & Gas Pipelines industry
Current volume relative to the 65-day Moving Average: CQP: 69%, EPD: 86%, GLP: 133%
Market capitalization -- CQP: $31.32B, EPD: $81.67B, GLP: $1.7B
$CQP is valued at $31.32B, while EPD has a market capitalization of $81.67B, and GLP's market capitalization is $1.7B. The market cap for tickers in this @Oil & Gas Pipelines ranges from $111.5B to $0. The average market capitalization across the @Oil & Gas Pipelines industry is $16.46B.

Long-Term Analysis

It is best to consider a long-term outlook for a ticker by using Fundamental Analysis (FA) ratings. The rating of 1 to 100, where 1 is best and 100 is worst, is divided into thirds. The first third (a green rating of 1-33) indicates that the ticker is undervalued; the second third (a grey number between 34 and 66) means that the ticker is valued fairly; and the last third (red number of 67 to 100) reflects that the ticker is undervalued. We use an FA Score to show how many ratings show the ticker to be undervalued (green) or overvalued (red).

CQP’s FA Score shows that 3 FA rating(s) are green whileEPD’s FA Score has 2 green FA rating(s), and GLP’s FA Score reflects 2 green FA rating(s).

  • CQP’s FA Score: 3 green, 2 red.
  • EPD’s FA Score: 2 green, 3 red.
  • GLP’s FA Score: 2 green, 3 red.
According to our system of comparison, EPD is a better buy in the long-term than CQP, which in turn is a better option than GLP.

Short-Term Analysis

It is best to consider a short-term outlook for a ticker by using Technical Analysis (TA) indicators. We use Odds of Success as the percentage of outcomes which confirm successful trade signals in the past.

If the Odds of Success (the likelihood of the continuation of a trend) for each indicator are greater than 50%, then the generated signal is confirmed. A green percentage from 90% to 51% indicates that the ticker is in a bullish trend. A red percentage from 90% - 51% indicates that the ticker is in a bearish trend. All grey percentages are below 50% and are considered not to confirm the trend signal.

CQP’s TA Score shows that 5 TA indicator(s) are bullish while EPD’s TA Score has 4 bullish TA indicator(s), and GLP’s TA Score reflects 6 bullish TA indicator(s).

  • CQP’s TA Score: 5 bullish, 4 bearish.
  • EPD’s TA Score: 4 bullish, 5 bearish.
  • GLP’s TA Score: 6 bullish, 3 bearish.
According to our system of comparison, GLP is a better buy in the short-term than CQP, which in turn is a better option than EPD.

Price Growth

CQP (@Oil & Gas Pipelines) experienced а -0.57% price change this week, while EPD (@Oil & Gas Pipelines) price change was -0.79% , and GLP (@Oil & Gas Pipelines) price fluctuated +1.44% for the same time period.

The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Oil & Gas Pipelines industry was -1.47%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was -1.50%, and the average quarterly price growth was +16.64%.

Reported Earning Dates

CQP is expected to report earnings on Oct 29, 2026.

EPD is expected to report earnings on Nov 03, 2026.

GLP is expected to report earnings on Nov 06, 2026.

Industries' Descriptions

@Oil & Gas Pipelines (-1.47% weekly)

Oil & Gas Pipelines industry includes companies that transport natural gas and crude oil through pipelines. These companies also collect and market the fuels. The pipeline segment could be considered as a midstream operation – functioning as a link between the upstream and downstream operations in the oil and gas industry. Some of the largest U.S. pipeline players include Enterprise Products Partners L.P, TC Energy Corporation and Energy Transfer, L.P.

SUMMARIES
Loading...
FUNDAMENTALS
Fundamentals
EPD($81.7B) has a higher market cap than CQP($31.3B) and GLP($1.71B). EPD has higher P/E ratio than CQP and GLP: EPD (13.06) vs CQP (11.74) and GLP (10.26). CQP YTD gains are higher at: 25.883 vs. GLP (23.821) and EPD (23.209). EPD has higher annual earnings (EBITDA): 9.81B vs. CQP (4.57B) and GLP (429M). GLP has less debt than CQP and EPD: GLP (2.25B) vs CQP (14.2B) and EPD (33.9B). EPD has higher revenues than GLP and CQP: EPD (51.6B) vs GLP (19.3B) and CQP (11.5B).
CQPEPDGLP
Capitalization31.3B81.7B1.71B
EBITDA4.57B9.81B429M
Gain YTD25.88323.20923.821
P/E Ratio11.7413.0610.26
Revenue11.5B51.6B19.3B
Total CashN/AN/A18.4M
Total Debt14.2B33.9B2.25B
FUNDAMENTALS RATINGS
CQP vs EPD vs GLP: Fundamental Ratings
CQP
EPD
GLP
OUTLOOK RATING
1..100
838695
VALUATION
overvalued / fair valued / undervalued
1..100
16
Undervalued
11
Undervalued
10
Undervalued
PROFIT vs RISK RATING
1..100
19423
SMR RATING
1..100
44651
PRICE GROWTH RATING
1..100
484851
P/E GROWTH RATING
1..100
663887
SEASONALITY SCORE
1..100
335550

Tickeron ratings are formulated such that a rating of 1 designates the most successful stocks in a given industry, while a rating of 100 points to the least successful stocks for that industry.

GLP's Valuation (10) in the Wholesale Distributors industry is in the same range as EPD (11) in the Oil And Gas Pipelines industry, and is in the same range as CQP (16) in the Oil And Gas Pipelines industry. This means that GLP's stock grew similarly to EPD’s and similarly to CQP’s over the last 12 months.

EPD's Profit vs Risk Rating (4) in the Oil And Gas Pipelines industry is in the same range as CQP (19) in the Oil And Gas Pipelines industry, and is in the same range as GLP (23) in the Wholesale Distributors industry. This means that EPD's stock grew similarly to CQP’s and similarly to GLP’s over the last 12 months.

CQP's SMR Rating (4) in the Oil And Gas Pipelines industry is somewhat better than the same rating for EPD (46) in the Oil And Gas Pipelines industry, and is somewhat better than the same rating for GLP (51) in the Wholesale Distributors industry. This means that CQP's stock grew somewhat faster than EPD’s and somewhat faster than GLP’s over the last 12 months.

CQP's Price Growth Rating (48) in the Oil And Gas Pipelines industry is in the same range as EPD (48) in the Oil And Gas Pipelines industry, and is in the same range as GLP (51) in the Wholesale Distributors industry. This means that CQP's stock grew similarly to EPD’s and similarly to GLP’s over the last 12 months.

EPD's P/E Growth Rating (38) in the Oil And Gas Pipelines industry is in the same range as CQP (66) in the Oil And Gas Pipelines industry, and is somewhat better than the same rating for GLP (87) in the Wholesale Distributors industry. This means that EPD's stock grew similarly to CQP’s and somewhat faster than GLP’s over the last 12 months.

TECHNICAL ANALYSIS
Technical Analysis
CQPEPDGLP
RSI
ODDS (%)
N/A
N/A
N/A
Stochastic
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 3 days ago
57%
Bearish Trend 3 days ago
30%
Bearish Trend 3 days ago
61%
Momentum
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 3 days ago
61%
Bearish Trend 3 days ago
28%
Bullish Trend 3 days ago
74%
MACD
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 3 days ago
64%
Bearish Trend 3 days ago
26%
Bullish Trend 3 days ago
75%
TrendWeek
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 3 days ago
55%
Bearish Trend 3 days ago
29%
Bullish Trend 3 days ago
75%
TrendMonth
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 3 days ago
69%
Bullish Trend 3 days ago
38%
Bullish Trend 3 days ago
74%
Advances
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 7 days ago
64%
Bullish Trend 12 days ago
45%
Bullish Trend 7 days ago
78%
Declines
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 5 days ago
54%
Bearish Trend 14 days ago
31%
Bearish Trend 5 days ago
58%
BollingerBands
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 5 days ago
60%
Bearish Trend 3 days ago
33%
Bearish Trend 3 days ago
67%
Aroon
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 3 days ago
70%
Bullish Trend 3 days ago
30%
Bullish Trend 3 days ago
70%
View a ticker or compare two or three
Interact to see
Advertisement
CQP
Daily Signal:
Gain/Loss:
EPD
Daily Signal:
Gain/Loss:
GLP
Daily Signal:
Gain/Loss:
Interesting Tickers
1D
1W
1M
1Q
6M
1Y
5Y
1 Day
STOCK / NAMEPrice $Chg $Chg %
ASBP7.730.67
+9.49%
Aspire Biopharma Holdings Inc.
AMPH20.780.97
+4.90%
Amphastar Pharmaceuticals
MSTR100.013.16
+3.26%
Strategy Inc
HOFT15.430.27
+1.78%
Hooker Furnishings Corp
VAC123.47-1.28
-1.03%
MARRIOTT VACATIONS WORLDWIDE Corp

CQP and

Correlation & Price change

A.I.dvisor indicates that over the last year, CQP has been loosely correlated with PAGP. These tickers have moved in lockstep 52% of the time. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is some statistical probability that if CQP jumps, then PAGP could also see price increases.

1D
1W
1M
1Q
6M
1Y
5Y
Ticker /
NAME
Correlation
To CQP
1D Price
Change %
CQP100%
-0.78%
PAGP - CQP
52%
Loosely correlated
-2.52%
PAA - CQP
52%
Loosely correlated
-3.02%
WES - CQP
49%
Loosely correlated
-0.72%
GLP - CQP
49%
Loosely correlated
+3.42%
EPD - CQP
49%
Loosely correlated
-0.79%
More

GLP and

Correlation & Price change

A.I.dvisor indicates that over the last year, GLP has been loosely correlated with CQP. These tickers have moved in lockstep 46% of the time. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is some statistical probability that if GLP jumps, then CQP could also see price increases.

1D
1W
1M
1Q
6M
1Y
5Y
Ticker /
NAME
Correlation
To GLP
1D Price
Change %
GLP100%
+3.42%
CQP - GLP
46%
Loosely correlated
-0.78%
GEL - GLP
43%
Loosely correlated
-0.66%
DKL - GLP
37%
Loosely correlated
-3.65%
HESM - GLP
34%
Loosely correlated
-0.35%
PAA - GLP
34%
Loosely correlated
-3.02%
More