AWR vs CWT

For growth investors, American States Water Company (AWR) is the stronger pick with 10.

5% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -3. 5% for California Water Service Group (CWT). California Water Service Group (CWT) offers the better valuation at 20. 3x trailing P/E (16. 9x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate California Water Service Group (CWT) a "Buy" — based on 10 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, California Water Service Group (CWT) is the cheapest at 20.

3x versus American States Water Company at 22. 8x. On forward P/E, California Water Service Group is actually cheaper at 16. 9x. The PEG ratio (P/E divided by earnings growth rate) is the most growth-adjusted single valuation metric: American States Water Company wins at 2. 70x versus California Water Service Group's 9. 58x.

Over the past 5 years, American States Water Company (AWR) delivered a total return of +7.

3%, compared to -15. 2% for California Water Service Group (CWT). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: AWR returned +123. 2% versus CWT's +83. 5%. 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), California Water Service Group (CWT) is the lower-risk stock at -0.

26β versus American States Water Company's -0. 17β — meaning AWR is approximately -35% more volatile than CWT relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, American States Water Company (AWR) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 90% versus 95% for California Water Service Group — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.

By revenue growth (latest reported year), American States Water Company (AWR) is pulling ahead at 10.

5% versus -3. 5% for California Water Service Group (CWT). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: American States Water Company grew EPS 6. 3% year-over-year, compared to -33. 8% for California Water Service Group. Over a 3-year CAGR, AWR leads at 10. 2% 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.

American States Water Company (AWR) is the more profitable company, earning 19.

8% net margin versus 12. 8% for California Water Service Group — meaning it keeps 19. 8% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: AWR leads at 30. 9% versus 18. 2% for CWT. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — AWR leads at 50. 8%, 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.

The PEG ratio (forward P/E divided by expected earnings growth rate) is the most precise measure of undervaluation relative to growth potential.

By this metric, American States Water Company (AWR) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 2. 70x versus California Water Service Group's 9. 58x. Both stocks trade at elevated growth-adjusted valuations, so expected growth needs to materialise. On forward earnings alone, California Water Service Group (CWT) trades at 16. 9x forward P/E versus 20. 7x for American States Water Company — 3. 8x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for CWT: 23. 7% to $54. 00.

All stocks in this comparison pay dividends.

California Water Service Group (CWT) offers the highest yield at 2. 8%, versus 2. 5% for American States Water Company (AWR).

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

26), 2. 8% yield). Both have compounded well over 10 years (CWT: +83. 5%, AWR: +123. 2%), 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 Utilities sector, making this a peer-level intra-sector comparison — the same macro tailwinds and headwinds will affect both.

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.