FTS vs ES

For growth investors, Fortis Inc.

(FTS) is the stronger pick with 5. 8% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -0. 1% for Eversource Energy (ES). Fortis Inc. (FTS) offers the better valuation at 23. 0x trailing P/E (15. 6x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Fortis Inc. (FTS) a "Hold" — based on 12 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, Fortis Inc.

(FTS) is the cheapest at 23. 0x versus Eversource Energy at 30. 4x. On forward P/E, Eversource Energy is actually cheaper at 14. 6x — notably different from the trailing picture, reflecting expected earnings growth.

Over the past 5 years, Fortis Inc.

(FTS) delivered a total return of +48. 5%, compared to -1. 2% for Eversource Energy (ES). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: FTS returned +130. 1% versus ES's +61. 8%. 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), Fortis Inc.

(FTS) is the lower-risk stock at -0. 26β versus Eversource Energy's 0. 27β — meaning ES is approximately -204% more volatile than FTS relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Fortis Inc. (FTS) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 134% versus 192% for Eversource Energy — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.

By revenue growth (latest reported year), Fortis Inc.

(FTS) is pulling ahead at 5. 8% versus -0. 1% for Eversource Energy (ES). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: Eversource Energy grew EPS 278. 7% year-over-year, compared to 4. 9% for Fortis Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, ES leads at 6. 5% 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.

Fortis Inc.

(FTS) is the more profitable company, earning 14. 8% net margin versus 6. 8% for Eversource Energy — meaning it keeps 14. 8% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: FTS leads at 28. 7% versus 22. 7% for ES. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — FTS leads at 45. 6%, 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, Eversource Energy (ES) trades at 14.

6x forward P/E versus 15. 6x for Fortis Inc. — 0. 9x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for FTS: 7. 9% to $62. 00.

All stocks in this comparison pay dividends.

Eversource Energy (ES) offers the highest yield at 4. 1%, versus 2. 1% for Fortis Inc. (FTS).

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), 2. 1% yield, +130. 1% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (FTS: +130. 1%, ES: +61. 8%), 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.

In terms of investment character: FTS is a mid-cap quality compounder stock; ES is a mid-cap income-oriented 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.