CCJ vs NEE

For growth investors, NextEra Energy, Inc.

(NEE) is the stronger pick with 11. 0% revenue growth year-over-year, versus 10. 9% for Cameco Corporation (CCJ). NextEra Energy, Inc. (NEE) offers the better valuation at 29. 0x trailing P/E (23. 6x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Cameco Corporation (CCJ) a "Buy" — based on 19 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, NextEra Energy, Inc.

(NEE) is the cheapest at 29. 0x versus Cameco Corporation at 124. 6x. On forward P/E, NextEra Energy, Inc. is actually cheaper at 23. 6x.

Over the past 5 years, Cameco Corporation (CCJ) delivered a total return of +584.

4%, compared to +42. 0% for NextEra Energy, Inc. (NEE). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: CCJ returned +975. 9% versus NEE's +274. 2%. 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), NextEra Energy, Inc.

(NEE) is the lower-risk stock at 0. 21β versus Cameco Corporation's 1. 72β — meaning CCJ is approximately 728% more volatile than NEE relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Cameco Corporation (CCJ) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 15% versus 144% for NextEra Energy, Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.

By revenue growth (latest reported year), NextEra Energy, Inc.

(NEE) is pulling ahead at 11. 0% versus 10. 9% for Cameco Corporation (CCJ). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Cameco Corporation grew EPS 246. 2% year-over-year, compared to -2. 4% for NextEra Energy, Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, CCJ leads at 23. 0% 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.

NextEra Energy, Inc.

(NEE) is the more profitable company, earning 24. 9% net margin versus 16. 9% for Cameco Corporation — meaning it keeps 24. 9% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: NEE leads at 30. 1% versus 16. 7% for CCJ. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — NEE leads at 62. 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.

On forward earnings alone, NextEra Energy, Inc.

(NEE) trades at 23. 6x forward P/E versus 77. 2x for Cameco Corporation — 53. 6x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for NEE: 2. 9% to $98. 13.

All stocks in this comparison pay dividends.

NextEra Energy, Inc. (NEE) offers the highest yield at 2. 3%, versus 0. 1% for Cameco Corporation (CCJ).

For long-horizon retirement investors, NextEra Energy, Inc.

(NEE) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0. 21), 2. 3% yield, +274. 2% 10Y return). Cameco Corporation (CCJ) carries a higher beta of 1. 72 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (NEE: +274. 2%, CCJ: +975. 9%), 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.

These companies operate in different sectors (CCJ (Energy) and NEE (Utilities)), which means they face different economic cycles, regulatory environments, and macro sensitivities — making direct comparison nuanced.

NEE pays a dividend while CCJ does 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.