FLR vs PWR

For growth investors, Quanta Services, Inc.

(PWR) is the stronger pick with 19. 8% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -5. 0% for Fluor Corporation (FLR). Quanta Services, Inc. (PWR) offers the better valuation at 110. 4x trailing P/E (57. 4x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Fluor Corporation (FLR) a "Buy" — based on 28 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 forward P/E, Fluor Corporation is actually cheaper at 18.

5x — notably different from the trailing picture, reflecting expected earnings growth.

Over the past 5 years, Quanta Services, Inc.

(PWR) delivered a total return of +651. 1%, compared to +107. 0% for Fluor Corporation (FLR). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: PWR returned +31. 4% versus FLR's +5. 9%. 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), Quanta Services, Inc.

(PWR) is the lower-risk stock at 1. 30β versus Fluor Corporation's 1. 90β — meaning FLR is approximately 46% more volatile than PWR relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Quanta Services, Inc. (PWR) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 13% versus 33% for Fluor Corporation — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.

By revenue growth (latest reported year), Quanta Services, Inc.

(PWR) is pulling ahead at 19. 8% versus -5. 0% for Fluor Corporation (FLR). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Quanta Services, Inc. grew EPS 12. 8% year-over-year, compared to -116. 2% for Fluor Corporation. Over a 3-year CAGR, PWR leads at 18. 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.

Quanta Services, Inc.

(PWR) is the more profitable company, earning 3. 6% net margin versus -2. 3% for Fluor Corporation — meaning it keeps 3. 6% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: PWR leads at 5. 8% versus -2. 4% for FLR. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — PWR leads at 13. 0%, 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, Fluor Corporation (FLR) trades at 18.

5x forward P/E versus 57. 4x for Quanta Services, Inc. — 38. 9x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for FLR: 9. 6% to $56. 00.

None of the stocks in this comparison currently pay a material dividend.

All are effectively zero-yield and should be held for capital appreciation rather than income.

For long-horizon retirement investors, Quanta Services, Inc.

(PWR) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding. Fluor Corporation (FLR) carries a higher beta of 1. 90 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (PWR: +31. 4%, FLR: +5. 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.

Both stocks operate in the Industrials sector, making this a peer-level intra-sector comparison — the same macro tailwinds and headwinds will affect both.

In terms of investment character: FLR is a small-cap quality compounder stock; PWR is a mid-cap high-growth 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.