Regulated Electric
Compare Stocks
5 / 10Stock Comparison
FTS vs ATO vs SR vs CMS vs NI
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Regulated Gas
Regulated Gas
Regulated Electric
Regulated Gas
FTS vs ATO vs SR vs CMS vs NI — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Regulated Electric | Regulated Gas | Regulated Gas | Regulated Electric | Regulated Gas |
| Market Cap | $28.47B | $30.09B | $5.05B | $22.85B | $22.54B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $12.22B | $4.88B | $2.47B | $8.82B | $6.82B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $1.80B | $1.35B | $358M | $1.11B | $962M |
| Gross Margin | 60.8% | 32.9% | 73.3% | 64.6% | 62.8% |
| Operating Margin | 28.4% | 35.9% | 22.1% | 19.5% | 27.8% |
| Forward P/E | 15.2x | 21.9x | 16.5x | 19.0x | 22.9x |
| Total Debt | $34.63B | $9.30B | $5.24B | $18.94B | $16.24B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $367M | $204M | $6M | $615M | $136M |
FTS vs ATO vs SR vs CMS vs NI — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | May 20 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fortis Inc. (FTS) | 100 | 146.3 | +46.3% |
| Atmos Energy Corpor… (ATO) | 100 | 176.9 | +76.9% |
| Spire Inc. (SR) | 100 | 117.3 | +17.3% |
| CMS Energy Corporat… (CMS) | 100 | 126.3 | +26.3% |
| NiSource Inc. (NI) | 100 | 197.3 | +97.3% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: FTS vs ATO vs SR vs CMS vs NI
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
FTS ranks third and is worth considering specifically for value.
- Lower P/E (15.2x vs 22.9x)
ATO carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for long-term compounding.
- 179.6% 10Y total return vs NI's 137.6%
- 27.6% margin vs CMS's 12.5%
- 1.9% yield, 28-year raise streak, vs SR's 3.6%
- 4.5% ROA vs FTS's 2.4%, ROIC 5.5% vs 4.4%
SR is the clearest fit if your priority is valuation efficiency.
- PEG 0.66 vs CMS's 3.18
CMS is the clearest fit if your priority is income & stability and sleep-well-at-night.
- Dividend streak 19 yrs, beta 0.01, yield 3.0%
- Lower volatility, beta 0.01, current ratio 0.98x
- Beta 0.01, yield 3.0%, current ratio 0.98x
- Beta 0.01 vs NI's 0.22
NI is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if growth exposure is your priority.
- Rev growth 21.8%, EPS growth 20.4%, 3Y rev CAGR 4.3%
- 21.8% revenue growth vs SR's -4.5%
- +19.0% vs CMS's +3.0%
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 21.8% revenue growth vs SR's -4.5% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (15.2x vs 22.9x) | |
| Quality / Margins | 27.6% margin vs CMS's 12.5% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.01 vs NI's 0.22 | |
| Dividends | 1.9% yield, 28-year raise streak, vs SR's 3.6% | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +19.0% vs CMS's +3.0% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 4.5% ROA vs FTS's 2.4%, ROIC 5.5% vs 4.4% |
FTS vs ATO vs SR vs CMS vs NI — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
FTS vs ATO vs SR vs CMS vs NI — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 5 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
SR leads in 1 of 6 categories
ATO leads 1 • NI leads 1 • FTS leads 0 • CMS leads 0 • 3 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
Evenly matched — ATO and SR each lead in 2 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
FTS is the larger business by revenue, generating $12.2B annually — 4.9x SR's $2.5B. ATO is the more profitable business, keeping 27.6% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to CMS's 12.5%. On growth, CMS holds the edge at +11.6% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $12.2B | $4.9B | $2.5B | $8.8B | $6.8B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $5.5B | $2.5B | $864M | $2.9B | $3.1B |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | $1.8B | $1.3B | $358M | $1.1B | $962M |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | -$2.2B | -$2.0B | -$2.7B | -$2.0B | -$1.0B |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +60.8% | +32.9% | +73.3% | +64.6% | +62.8% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | +28.4% | +35.9% | +22.1% | +19.5% | +27.8% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | +14.8% | +27.6% | +14.5% | +12.5% | +14.1% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | -18.4% | -40.8% | -108.1% | -23.1% | -15.0% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +1.6% | +0.6% | -9.0% | +11.6% | +8.2% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -1.0% | +14.5% | +31.1% | +11.9% | +6.0% |
Valuation Metrics
SR leads this category, winning 5 of 6 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 19.6x trailing earnings, SR trades at a 20% valuation discount to ATO's 24.4x P/E. Adjusting for growth (PEG ratio), SR offers better value at 0.79x vs FTS's 4.48x — a lower PEG means you pay less per unit of expected earnings growth.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $28.5B | $30.1B | $5.1B | $22.8B | $22.5B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $53.6B | $39.2B | $10.3B | $41.2B | $38.6B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | 22.52x | 24.38x | 19.57x | 20.95x | 24.11x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | 15.19x | 21.88x | 16.47x | 19.05x | 22.85x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | 4.48x | 2.77x | 0.79x | 3.50x | — |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 13.18x | 17.08x | 12.51x | 14.31x | 12.87x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 3.19x | 6.40x | 2.04x | 2.68x | 3.39x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 1.57x | 2.15x | 1.48x | 2.29x | 1.91x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | — | — | — | — | — |
Profitability & Efficiency
ATO leads this category, winning 5 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
CMS delivers a 11.6% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $12 in annual profit, vs $7 for FTS. ATO carries lower financial leverage with a 0.69x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to CMS's 1.95x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), NI scores 7/9 vs SR's 5/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | +6.9% | +7.7% | +10.4% | +11.6% | +8.4% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | +2.4% | +4.5% | +2.9% | +2.8% | +2.7% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | +4.4% | +5.5% | +4.7% | +4.9% | +5.3% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | +5.2% | +6.1% | +5.8% | +5.0% | +6.0% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 6 | 5 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 1.34x | 0.69x | 1.54x | 1.95x | 1.39x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $34.3B | $9.1B | $5.2B | $18.3B | $16.1B |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $367M | $204M | $6M | $615M | $136M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $34.6B | $9.3B | $5.2B | $18.9B | $16.2B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | 2.59x | 9.61x | 2.62x | 2.58x | 2.87x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
NI leads this category, winning 5 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in NI five years ago would be worth $20,085 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $13,036 for CMS. Over the past 12 months, NI leads with a +19.0% total return vs CMS's +3.0%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors NI at 20.9% vs CMS's 9.2% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | +9.0% | +8.0% | +3.8% | +5.8% | +13.0% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | +16.4% | +14.1% | +16.6% | +3.0% | +19.0% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +33.9% | +62.9% | +38.7% | +30.3% | +76.8% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +42.7% | +91.7% | +32.1% | +30.4% | +100.8% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +130.8% | +179.6% | +71.4% | +119.4% | +137.6% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | +10.2% | +17.7% | +11.5% | +9.2% | +20.9% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — FTS and NI each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
FTS is the less volatile stock with a -0.26 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than NI's 0.22 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. NI currently trades 96.0% from its 52-week high vs SR's 89.7% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | -0.26x | -0.00x | 0.06x | 0.01x | 0.22x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $58.78 | $192.51 | $95.31 | $80.36 | $48.98 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $45.87 | $149.98 | $69.94 | $67.71 | $37.22 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +95.5% | +94.5% | +89.7% | +92.0% | +96.0% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 45.8 | 46.0 | 34.0 | 38.2 | 48.8 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 669K | 854K | 346K | 2.6M | 3.9M |
Analyst Outlook
Evenly matched — ATO and SR each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: FTS as "Hold", ATO as "Hold", SR as "Buy", CMS as "Buy", NI as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 13.4% upside for SR (target: $97) vs -1.6% for ATO (target: $179). For income investors, SR offers the higher dividend yield at 3.63% vs ATO's 1.90%.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Hold | Hold | Buy | Buy | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $62.00 | $179.00 | $97.00 | $81.00 | $49.80 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 12 | 20 | 15 | 29 | 22 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | +1.9% | +1.9% | +3.6% | +3.0% | +2.4% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 0 | 28 | 12 | 19 | 4 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | $1.49 | $3.45 | $3.10 | $2.21 | $1.12 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.0% |
SR leads in 1 of 6 categories (Valuation Metrics). ATO leads in 1 (Profitability & Efficiency). 3 tied.
FTS vs ATO vs SR vs CMS vs NI: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is FTS or ATO or SR or CMS or NI a better buy right now?
For growth investors, NiSource Inc.
(NI) is the stronger pick with 21. 8% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -4. 5% for Spire Inc. (SR). Spire Inc. (SR) offers the better valuation at 19. 6x trailing P/E (16. 5x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Spire Inc. (SR) a "Buy" — based on 15 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 — FTS or ATO or SR or CMS or NI?
On trailing P/E, Spire Inc.
(SR) is the cheapest at 19. 6x versus Atmos Energy Corporation at 24. 4x. On forward P/E, Fortis Inc. is actually cheaper at 15. 2x — notably different from the trailing picture, reflecting expected earnings growth. The PEG ratio (P/E divided by earnings growth rate) is the most growth-adjusted single valuation metric: Spire Inc. wins at 0. 66x versus CMS Energy Corporation's 3. 18x — a PEG below 1. 0 traditionally signals the market is underpricing earnings growth.
03Which is the better long-term investment — FTS or ATO or SR or CMS or NI?
Over the past 5 years, NiSource Inc.
(NI) delivered a total return of +100. 8%, compared to +30. 4% for CMS Energy Corporation (CMS). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: ATO returned +179. 6% versus SR's +71. 4%. 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 — FTS or ATO or SR or CMS or NI?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Fortis Inc.
(FTS) is the lower-risk stock at -0. 26β versus NiSource Inc. 's 0. 22β — meaning NI is approximately -185% more volatile than FTS relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Atmos Energy Corporation (ATO) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 69% versus 195% for CMS Energy Corporation — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — FTS or ATO or SR or CMS or NI?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), NiSource Inc.
(NI) is pulling ahead at 21. 8% versus -4. 5% for Spire Inc. (SR). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: NiSource Inc. grew EPS 20. 4% year-over-year, compared to 4. 3% for Spire Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, NI leads at 4. 3% 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 — FTS or ATO or SR or CMS or NI?
Atmos Energy Corporation (ATO) is the more profitable company, earning 25.
5% net margin versus 11. 0% for Spire Inc. — meaning it keeps 25. 5% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: ATO leads at 33. 2% versus 20. 2% for CMS. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — SR leads at 78. 1%, 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 FTS or ATO or SR or CMS or NI 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, Spire Inc. (SR) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 0. 66x versus CMS Energy Corporation's 3. 18x. A PEG below 1. 0 is traditionally considered the threshold for growth-adjusted undervaluation. On forward earnings alone, Fortis Inc. (FTS) trades at 15. 2x forward P/E versus 22. 9x for NiSource Inc. — 7. 7x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for SR: 13. 4% to $97. 00.
08Which pays a better dividend — FTS or ATO or SR or CMS or NI?
All stocks in this comparison pay dividends.
Spire Inc. (SR) offers the highest yield at 3. 6%, versus 1. 9% for Atmos Energy Corporation (ATO).
09Is FTS or ATO or SR or CMS or NI better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, Fortis Inc.
(FTS) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β -0. 26), 1. 9% yield, +130. 8% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (FTS: +130. 8%, NI: +137. 6%), 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 FTS and ATO and SR and CMS and NI?
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: FTS is a mid-cap quality compounder stock; ATO is a mid-cap quality compounder stock; SR is a small-cap income-oriented stock; CMS is a mid-cap quality compounder stock; NI 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.
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.