Renewable Utilities
Compare Stocks
5 / 10Stock Comparison
GEV vs HUBB vs ETN vs PWR vs EMR
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Electrical Equipment & Parts
Industrial - Machinery
Engineering & Construction
Industrial - Machinery
GEV vs HUBB vs ETN vs PWR vs EMR — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Renewable Utilities | Electrical Equipment & Parts | Industrial - Machinery | Engineering & Construction | Industrial - Machinery |
| Market Cap | $281.02B | $26.21B | $155.02B | $112.65B | $79.02B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $39.38B | $6.00B | $28.52B | $29.99B | $18.32B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $9.38B | $906M | $3.99B | $1.12B | $2.44B |
| Gross Margin | 19.9% | 35.5% | 36.9% | 13.6% | 52.7% |
| Operating Margin | 3.9% | 20.8% | 18.1% | 5.8% | 19.8% |
| Forward P/E | 37.6x | 25.0x | 30.0x | 57.4x | 21.7x |
| Total Debt | $0.00 | $2.61B | $11.17B | $1.19B | $13.76B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $8.85B | $483M | $622M | $440M | $1.54B |
GEV vs HUBB vs ETN vs PWR vs EMR — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | Mar 24 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| GE Vernova Inc. (GEV) | 100 | 764.7 | +664.7% |
| Hubbell Incorporated (HUBB) | 100 | 118.8 | +18.8% |
| Eaton Corporation p… (ETN) | 100 | 127.7 | +27.7% |
| Quanta Services, In… (PWR) | 100 | 289.0 | +189.0% |
| Emerson Electric Co. (EMR) | 100 | 124.4 | +24.4% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: GEV vs HUBB vs ETN vs PWR vs EMR
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
GEV carries the broadest edge in this set and is the clearest fit for quality and momentum.
- 23.8% margin vs PWR's 3.7%
- +157.4% vs EMR's +30.4%
- 15.2% ROA vs PWR's 4.8%, ROIC 27.9% vs 11.8%
HUBB is the clearest fit if your priority is valuation efficiency and defensive.
- PEG 1.20 vs EMR's 4.81
- Beta 1.38, yield 1.1%, current ratio 1.72x
Among these 5 stocks, ETN doesn't own a clear edge in any measured category.
PWR is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if growth exposure and long-term compounding is your priority.
- Rev growth 19.8%, EPS growth 12.8%, 3Y rev CAGR 18.4%
- 31.4% 10Y total return vs GEV's 7.0%
- Lower volatility, beta 1.30, Low D/E 13.2%, current ratio 1.14x
- 19.8% revenue growth vs EMR's 3.0%
EMR ranks third and is worth considering specifically for income & stability.
- Dividend streak 37 yrs, beta 1.52, yield 1.5%
- Lower P/E (21.7x vs 57.4x)
- 1.5% yield, 37-year raise streak, vs PWR's 0.1%
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 19.8% revenue growth vs EMR's 3.0% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (21.7x vs 57.4x) | |
| Quality / Margins | 23.8% margin vs PWR's 3.7% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 1.30 vs GEV's 1.76 | |
| Dividends | 1.5% yield, 37-year raise streak, vs PWR's 0.1% | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +157.4% vs EMR's +30.4% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 15.2% ROA vs PWR's 4.8%, ROIC 27.9% vs 11.8% |
GEV vs HUBB vs ETN vs PWR vs EMR — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
GEV vs HUBB vs ETN vs PWR vs EMR — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 5 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
EMR leads in 2 of 6 categories
GEV leads 2 • PWR leads 1 • HUBB leads 0 • ETN leads 0 • 1 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
Evenly matched — GEV and EMR each lead in 2 of 6 comparable metrics.
Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
GEV is the larger business by revenue, generating $39.4B annually — 6.6x HUBB's $6.0B. GEV is the more profitable business, keeping 23.8% of every revenue dollar as net income compared to PWR's 3.7%. On growth, PWR holds the edge at +26.3% YoY revenue growth, suggesting stronger near-term business momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RevenueTrailing 12 months | $39.4B | $6.0B | $28.5B | $30.0B | $18.3B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $2.2B | $1.5B | $5.9B | $2.4B | $4.7B |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | $9.4B | $906M | $4.0B | $1.1B | $2.4B |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | $3.6B | $909M | $4.7B | $1.7B | $3.1B |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +19.9% | +35.5% | +36.9% | +13.6% | +52.7% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | +3.9% | +20.8% | +18.1% | +5.8% | +19.8% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | +23.8% | +15.1% | +14.0% | +3.7% | +13.3% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | +9.2% | +15.2% | +16.5% | +5.6% | +17.0% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +16.1% | +11.1% | +16.8% | +26.3% | +2.9% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +18.2% | +8.3% | -9.4% | +51.0% | +28.2% |
Valuation Metrics
EMR leads this category, winning 4 of 7 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 29.8x trailing earnings, HUBB trades at a 73% valuation discount to PWR's 110.4x P/E. Adjusting for growth (PEG ratio), HUBB offers better value at 1.43x vs EMR's 7.73x — a lower PEG means you pay less per unit of expected earnings growth.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $281.0B | $26.2B | $155.0B | $112.7B | $79.0B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $272.2B | $28.3B | $165.6B | $113.4B | $91.2B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | 59.12x | 29.81x | 38.17x | 110.40x | 34.92x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | 37.62x | 25.01x | 30.00x | 57.40x | 21.71x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | — | 1.43x | 1.55x | 6.40x | 7.73x |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 121.45x | 20.81x | 27.69x | 45.68x | 18.07x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 7.38x | 4.48x | 5.65x | 3.97x | 4.39x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 23.47x | 6.85x | 7.99x | 12.61x | 3.94x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | 75.73x | 29.97x | 34.67x | 69.50x | 29.63x |
Profitability & Efficiency
GEV leads this category, winning 5 of 9 comparable metrics.
Profitability & Efficiency
GEV delivers a 79.7% return on equity — every $100 of shareholder capital generates $80 in annual profit, vs $12 for EMR. PWR carries lower financial leverage with a 0.13x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to EMR's 0.68x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), HUBB scores 7/9 vs PWR's 4/9, reflecting strong financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | +79.7% | +24.4% | +20.8% | +13.0% | +12.1% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | +15.2% | +11.6% | +9.0% | +4.8% | +5.8% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | +27.9% | +17.1% | +13.6% | +11.8% | +8.2% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | +6.6% | +20.1% | +16.8% | +11.3% | +10.0% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 6 | 7 | 6 | 4 | 7 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | — | 0.68x | 0.57x | 0.13x | 0.68x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | -$8.8B | $2.1B | $10.5B | $748M | $12.2B |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $8.8B | $483M | $622M | $440M | $1.5B |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $0 | $2.6B | $11.2B | $1.2B | $13.8B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | — | 16.90x | 16.38x | 6.27x | 6.46x |
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
GEV leads this category, winning 4 of 6 comparable metrics.
Total Returns (Dividends Reinvested)
A $10,000 investment in GEV five years ago would be worth $79,830 today (with dividends reinvested), compared to $15,945 for EMR. Over the past 12 months, GEV leads with a +157.4% total return vs EMR's +30.4%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors GEV at 99.9% vs EMR's 20.7% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | +54.0% | +6.8% | +22.3% | +70.8% | +4.3% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | +157.4% | +41.5% | +33.2% | +132.1% | +30.4% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +698.3% | +87.9% | +141.3% | +345.2% | +75.9% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +698.3% | +159.4% | +182.8% | +651.1% | +59.5% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +698.3% | +410.7% | +608.7% | +3143.9% | +206.6% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | +99.9% | +23.4% | +34.1% | +64.5% | +20.7% |
Risk & Volatility
PWR leads this category, winning 2 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
PWR is the less volatile stock with a 1.30 beta — it tends to amplify market swings less than GEV's 1.76 beta. A beta below 1.0 means the stock typically moves less than the S&P 500. PWR currently trades 95.2% from its 52-week high vs EMR's 85.4% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 1.76x | 1.38x | 1.42x | 1.30x | 1.52x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $1181.95 | $565.50 | $435.43 | $788.72 | $165.15 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $387.03 | $349.40 | $296.93 | $315.45 | $108.37 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +88.5% | +87.2% | +91.7% | +95.2% | +85.4% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 66.5 | 41.2 | 59.8 | 87.0 | 61.3 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 2.4M | 546K | 2.5M | 1.1M | 2.8M |
Analyst Outlook
EMR leads this category, winning 2 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: GEV as "Buy", HUBB as "Hold", ETN as "Buy", PWR as "Buy", EMR as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 14.8% upside for EMR (target: $162) vs -13.8% for PWR (target: $647). For income investors, EMR offers the higher dividend yield at 1.49% vs ETN's 1.05%.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Buy | Hold | Buy | Buy | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $1119.95 | $535.14 | $379.78 | $647.23 | $161.92 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 28 | 17 | 39 | 35 | 41 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | +0.1% | +1.1% | +1.0% | +0.1% | +1.5% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 1 | 12 | 24 | 7 | 37 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | $1.00 | $5.35 | $4.17 | $0.40 | $2.10 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | +1.2% | +0.9% | +1.2% | +0.1% | +1.6% |
EMR leads in 2 of 6 categories (Valuation Metrics, Analyst Outlook). GEV leads in 2 (Profitability & Efficiency, Total Returns). 1 tied.
GEV vs HUBB vs ETN vs PWR vs EMR: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is GEV or HUBB or ETN or PWR or EMR a better buy right now?
For growth investors, Quanta Services, Inc.
(PWR) is the stronger pick with 19. 8% revenue growth year-over-year, versus 3. 0% for Emerson Electric Co. (EMR). Hubbell Incorporated (HUBB) offers the better valuation at 29. 8x trailing P/E (25. 0x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate GE Vernova Inc. (GEV) 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.
02Which has the better valuation — GEV or HUBB or ETN or PWR or EMR?
On trailing P/E, Hubbell Incorporated (HUBB) is the cheapest at 29.
8x versus Quanta Services, Inc. at 110. 4x. On forward P/E, Emerson Electric Co. is actually cheaper at 21. 7x — 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: Hubbell Incorporated wins at 1. 20x versus Emerson Electric Co. 's 4. 81x — a reasonable growth-adjusted valuation.
03Which is the better long-term investment — GEV or HUBB or ETN or PWR or EMR?
Over the past 5 years, GE Vernova Inc.
(GEV) delivered a total return of +698. 3%, compared to +59. 5% for Emerson Electric Co. (EMR). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: PWR returned +31. 4% versus EMR's +206. 6%. 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 — GEV or HUBB or ETN or PWR or EMR?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), Quanta Services, Inc.
(PWR) is the lower-risk stock at 1. 30β versus GE Vernova Inc. 's 1. 76β — meaning GEV is approximately 35% 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 68% for Emerson Electric Co. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — GEV or HUBB or ETN or PWR or EMR?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), Quanta Services, Inc.
(PWR) is pulling ahead at 19. 8% versus 3. 0% for Emerson Electric Co. (EMR). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: GE Vernova Inc. grew EPS 217. 0% year-over-year, compared to 10. 1% for Eaton Corporation plc. 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.
06Which has better profit margins — GEV or HUBB or ETN or PWR or EMR?
Hubbell Incorporated (HUBB) is the more profitable company, earning 15.
2% net margin versus 3. 6% for Quanta Services, Inc. — meaning it keeps 15. 2% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: HUBB leads at 20. 8% versus 3. 6% for GEV. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — EMR leads at 52. 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 GEV or HUBB or ETN or PWR or EMR 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, Hubbell Incorporated (HUBB) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 1. 20x versus Emerson Electric Co. 's 4. 81x. A PEG below 1. 5 suggests fair-to-attractive pricing relative to expected growth. On forward earnings alone, Emerson Electric Co. (EMR) trades at 21. 7x forward P/E versus 57. 4x for Quanta Services, Inc. — 35. 7x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for EMR: 14. 8% to $161. 92.
08Which pays a better dividend — GEV or HUBB or ETN or PWR or EMR?
In this comparison, EMR (1.
5% yield), HUBB (1. 1% yield), ETN (1. 0% yield) pay a dividend. GEV, PWR do not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
09Is GEV or HUBB or ETN or PWR or EMR better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, Eaton Corporation plc (ETN) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (1.
0% yield, +608. 7% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (ETN: +608. 7%, PWR: +31. 4%), 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 GEV and HUBB and ETN and PWR and EMR?
These companies operate in different sectors (GEV (Utilities) and HUBB (Industrials) and ETN (Industrials) and PWR (Industrials) and EMR (Industrials)), which means they face different economic cycles, regulatory environments, and macro sensitivities — making direct comparison nuanced.
In terms of investment character: GEV is a large-cap quality compounder stock; HUBB is a mid-cap quality compounder stock; ETN is a mid-cap quality compounder stock; PWR is a mid-cap high-growth stock; EMR is a mid-cap quality compounder stock. HUBB, ETN, EMR pay a dividend while GEV, PWR do 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.
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.