Regulated Electric
Compare Stocks
5 / 10Stock Comparison
CMSA vs AQNB vs EVRG vs PNW vs NEE
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Regulated Electric
Regulated Electric
Regulated Electric
Regulated Electric
CMSA vs AQNB vs EVRG vs PNW vs NEE — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Regulated Electric | Regulated Electric | Regulated Electric | Regulated Electric | Regulated Electric |
| Market Cap | $6.63B | $19.17B | $19.05B | $12.06B | $194.60B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $8.54B | $2.38B | $5.99B | $5.46B | $27.93B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $1.07B | $-1.37B | $882M | $654M | $8.18B |
| Gross Margin | 60.9% | 37.2% | 41.5% | 40.7% | 47.8% |
| Operating Margin | 20.2% | 19.4% | 25.4% | 27.5% | 29.5% |
| Forward P/E | 5.7x | 174.1x | 19.5x | 21.1x | 23.1x |
| Total Debt | $18.94B | $6.73B | $15.44B | $17.85B | $95.62B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $615M | $35M | $25M | $7M | $2.81B |
CMSA vs AQNB vs EVRG vs PNW vs NEE — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | May 20 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| CMS Energy Corporat… (CMSA) | 100 | 83.5 | -16.5% |
| Algonquin Power & U… (AQNB) | 100 | 96.7 | -3.3% |
| Evergy, Inc. (EVRG) | 100 | 134.1 | +34.1% |
| Pinnacle West Capit… (PNW) | 100 | 127.8 | +27.8% |
| NextEra Energy, Inc. (NEE) | 100 | 146.1 | +46.1% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: CMSA vs AQNB vs EVRG vs PNW vs NEE
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
CMSA carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for growth exposure and valuation efficiency.
- Rev growth 13.6%, EPS growth 6.0%, 3Y rev CAGR -0.2%
- PEG 0.95 vs PNW's 28.97
- Beta 0.73, yield 10.0%, current ratio 0.98x
- 13.6% revenue growth vs AQNB's -14.0%
AQNB is the clearest fit if your priority is sleep-well-at-night.
- Lower volatility, beta 0.12, current ratio 0.76x
EVRG ranks third and is worth considering specifically for income & stability.
- Dividend streak 6 yrs, beta 0.06, yield 3.2%
- Beta 0.06 vs CMSA's 0.73, lower leverage
Among these 5 stocks, PNW doesn't own a clear edge in any measured category.
NEE is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if long-term compounding is your priority.
- 266.0% 10Y total return vs EVRG's 100.7%
- 29.3% margin vs AQNB's -57.7%
- +42.0% vs CMSA's +9.8%
- 3.9% ROA vs AQNB's -10.0%, ROIC 4.1% vs 2.4%
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 13.6% revenue growth vs AQNB's -14.0% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (5.7x vs 23.1x), PEG 0.95 vs 1.33 | |
| Quality / Margins | 29.3% margin vs AQNB's -57.7% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.06 vs CMSA's 0.73, lower leverage | |
| Dividends | 10.0% yield, 19-year raise streak, vs NEE's 2.4% | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +42.0% vs CMSA's +9.8% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 3.9% ROA vs AQNB's -10.0%, ROIC 4.1% vs 2.4% |
CMSA vs AQNB vs EVRG vs PNW vs NEE — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
Segment breakdown not available.
CMSA vs AQNB vs EVRG vs PNW vs NEE — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 5 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
CMSA leads in 1 of 6 categories
AQNB leads 0 • EVRG leads 0 • PNW leads 0 • NEE leads 0 • 5 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
Evenly matched — AQNB and NEE each lead in 2 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
NEE is the larger business by revenue, generating $27.9B annually — 11.7x AQNB's $2.4B. NEE is the more profitable business, keeping 29.3% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to AQNB's -57.7%. On growth, AQNB holds the edge at +24.4% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $8.5B | $2.4B | $6.0B | $5.5B | $27.9B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $2.9B | $792M | $2.7B | $2.5B | $15.5B |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | $1.1B | -$1.4B | $882M | $654M | $8.2B |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | -$1.6B | $2.6B | -$1.1B | -$992M | -$3.8B |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +60.9% | +37.2% | +41.5% | +40.7% | +47.8% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | +20.2% | +19.4% | +25.4% | +27.5% | +29.5% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | +12.5% | -57.7% | +14.7% | +12.0% | +29.3% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | -18.6% | +109.0% | -18.3% | -18.2% | -13.6% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +12.3% | +24.4% | +5.5% | +11.4% | +7.3% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +6.8% | -93.1% | +18.5% | +7.8% | +160.0% |
Valuation Metrics
CMSA leads this category, winning 6 of 6 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 6.2x trailing earnings, CMSA trades at a 96% valuation discount to AQNB's 174.1x P/E. Adjusting for growth (PEG ratio), CMSA offers better value at 1.04x vs PNW's 28.97x — a lower PEG means you pay less per unit of expected earnings growth.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $6.6B | $19.2B | $19.1B | $12.1B | $194.6B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $25.0B | $25.9B | $34.5B | $29.9B | $287.4B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | 6.25x | 174.07x | 22.60x | 19.71x | 28.36x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | 5.69x | — | 19.52x | 21.11x | 23.07x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | 1.04x | — | 3.70x | 28.97x | 1.64x |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 8.67x | 30.72x | 12.72x | 14.32x | 18.73x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 0.78x | 8.26x | 3.22x | 2.26x | 7.08x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 0.68x | 3.10x | 1.88x | 1.71x | 2.93x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | — | — | — | — | — |
Profitability & Efficiency
Evenly matched — CMSA and AQNB each lead in 3 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
NEE delivers a 12.7% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $13 in annual profit, vs $-27 for AQNB. AQNB carries lower financial leverage with a 1.09x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to PNW's 2.52x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), CMSA scores 6/9 vs PNW's 3/9, reflecting solid financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | +11.6% | -26.7% | +8.6% | +9.3% | +12.7% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | +2.8% | -10.0% | +2.6% | +2.2% | +3.9% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | +4.9% | +2.4% | +4.5% | +3.9% | +4.1% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | +5.0% | +2.8% | +4.9% | +4.3% | +4.7% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 5 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 1.95x | 1.09x | 1.50x | 2.52x | 1.44x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $18.3B | $6.7B | $15.4B | $17.8B | $92.8B |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $615M | $35M | $25M | $7M | $2.8B |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $18.9B | $6.7B | $15.4B | $17.8B | $95.6B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | 2.58x | 1.23x | 2.46x | 2.75x | 1.99x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
Evenly matched — EVRG and NEE each lead in 3 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in EVRG five years ago would be worth $14,912 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $10,772 for CMSA. Over the past 12 months, NEE leads with a +42.0% total return vs CMSA's +9.8%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors EVRG at 13.4% vs CMSA's 1.9% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | +0.9% | +4.0% | +14.2% | +15.0% | +16.1% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | +9.8% | +12.1% | +22.7% | +10.0% | +42.0% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +5.9% | +36.9% | +46.0% | +38.1% | +31.0% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +7.7% | +25.2% | +49.1% | +35.9% | +38.2% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +33.2% | +48.4% | +100.7% | +78.9% | +266.0% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | +1.9% | +11.0% | +13.4% | +11.4% | +9.4% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — AQNB and PNW each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
PNW is the less volatile stock with a -0.03 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than CMSA's 0.73 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. AQNB currently trades 99.3% from its 52-week high vs CMSA's 89.4% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 0.73x | 0.12x | 0.06x | -0.03x | 0.21x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $24.67 | $26.29 | $85.27 | $104.92 | $98.75 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $6.11 | $25.08 | $63.29 | $85.32 | $63.88 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +89.4% | +99.3% | +97.0% | +94.9% | +94.5% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 68.9 | 56.8 | 45.8 | 43.1 | 54.3 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 14K | 40K | 1.8M | 1.1M | 8.7M |
Analyst Outlook
Evenly matched — CMSA and NEE each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: EVRG as "Hold", PNW as "Hold", NEE as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 7.6% upside for EVRG (target: $89) vs 3.6% for PNW (target: $103). For income investors, CMSA offers the higher dividend yield at 10.00% vs AQNB's 1.54%.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | — | — | Hold | Hold | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | — | — | $89.00 | $103.11 | $98.13 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | — | — | 18 | 24 | 36 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | +10.0% | +1.5% | +3.2% | +3.5% | +2.4% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 19 | 0 | 6 | 1 | 30 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | $2.21 | $0.40 | $2.62 | $3.47 | $2.24 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | 0.0% | +0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
CMSA leads in 1 of 6 categories — strongest in Valuation Metrics. 5 categories are tied.
CMSA vs AQNB vs EVRG vs PNW vs NEE: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is CMSA or AQNB or EVRG or PNW or NEE a better buy right now?
For growth investors, CMS Energy Corporation 5.
6% JRSUB NT 78 (CMSA) is the stronger pick with 13. 6% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -14. 0% for Algonquin Power & Utilities Cor (AQNB). CMS Energy Corporation 5. 6% JRSUB NT 78 (CMSA) offers the better valuation at 6. 2x trailing P/E (5. 7x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate NextEra Energy, Inc. (NEE) a "Buy" — based on 36 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 — CMSA or AQNB or EVRG or PNW or NEE?
On trailing P/E, CMS Energy Corporation 5.
6% JRSUB NT 78 (CMSA) is the cheapest at 6. 2x versus Algonquin Power & Utilities Cor at 174. 1x. On forward P/E, CMS Energy Corporation 5. 6% JRSUB NT 78 is actually cheaper at 5. 7x. The PEG ratio (P/E divided by earnings growth rate) is the most growth-adjusted single valuation metric: CMS Energy Corporation 5. 6% JRSUB NT 78 wins at 0. 95x versus Pinnacle West Capital Corporation's 28. 97x — a PEG below 1. 0 traditionally signals the market is underpricing earnings growth.
03Which is the better long-term investment — CMSA or AQNB or EVRG or PNW or NEE?
Over the past 5 years, Evergy, Inc.
(EVRG) delivered a total return of +49. 1%, compared to +7. 7% for CMS Energy Corporation 5. 6% JRSUB NT 78 (CMSA). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: NEE returned +266. 0% versus CMSA's +33. 2%. 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 — CMSA or AQNB or EVRG or PNW or NEE?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Pinnacle West Capital Corporation (PNW) is the lower-risk stock at -0.
03β versus CMS Energy Corporation 5. 6% JRSUB NT 78's 0. 73β — meaning CMSA is approximately -2781% more volatile than PNW relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Algonquin Power & Utilities Cor (AQNB) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 109% versus 3% for Pinnacle West Capital Corporation — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — CMSA or AQNB or EVRG or PNW or NEE?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), CMS Energy Corporation 5.
6% JRSUB NT 78 (CMSA) is pulling ahead at 13. 6% versus -14. 0% for Algonquin Power & Utilities Cor (AQNB). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Algonquin Power & Utilities Cor grew EPS 400. 0% year-over-year, compared to -3. 6% for Pinnacle West Capital Corporation. Over a 3-year CAGR, NEE leads at 9. 4% 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 — CMSA or AQNB or EVRG or PNW or NEE?
NextEra Energy, Inc.
(NEE) is the more profitable company, earning 24. 9% net margin versus -59. 5% for Algonquin Power & Utilities Cor — 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 19. 2% for AQNB. 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.
07Is CMSA or AQNB or EVRG or PNW or NEE more undervalued right now?
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, CMS Energy Corporation 5. 6% JRSUB NT 78 (CMSA) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 0. 95x versus Pinnacle West Capital Corporation's 28. 97x. A PEG below 1. 0 is traditionally considered the threshold for growth-adjusted undervaluation. On forward earnings alone, CMS Energy Corporation 5. 6% JRSUB NT 78 (CMSA) trades at 5. 7x forward P/E versus 23. 1x for NextEra Energy, Inc. — 17. 4x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for EVRG: 7. 6% to $89. 00.
08Which pays a better dividend — CMSA or AQNB or EVRG or PNW or NEE?
All stocks in this comparison pay dividends.
CMS Energy Corporation 5. 6% JRSUB NT 78 (CMSA) offers the highest yield at 10. 0%, versus 1. 5% for Algonquin Power & Utilities Cor (AQNB).
09Is CMSA or AQNB or EVRG or PNW or NEE better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, Pinnacle West Capital Corporation (PNW) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β -0.
03), 3. 5% yield). Both have compounded well over 10 years (PNW: +78. 9%, CMSA: +33. 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.
10What are the main differences between CMSA and AQNB and EVRG and PNW and NEE?
Both stocks operate in the Utilities sector, making this a peer-level intra-sector comparison — the same macro tailwinds and headwinds will affect both.
In terms of investment character: CMSA is a small-cap deep-value stock; AQNB is a mid-cap quality compounder stock; EVRG is a mid-cap income-oriented stock; PNW is a mid-cap income-oriented stock; NEE is a mid-cap quality compounder stock. 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.