Regulated Water
Compare Stocks
5 / 10Stock Comparison
GWRS vs GEV vs NEE vs MHK vs PWR
Revenue, margins, valuation, and 5-year total return — side by side.
Renewable Utilities
Regulated Electric
Furnishings, Fixtures & Appliances
Engineering & Construction
GWRS vs GEV vs NEE vs MHK vs PWR — Key Financials
Market cap, revenue, margins, and valuation side-by-side.
| Company Snapshot | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Industry | Regulated Water | Renewable Utilities | Regulated Electric | Furnishings, Fixtures & Appliances | Engineering & Construction |
| Market Cap | $206M | $281.02B | $194.60B | $6.29B | $112.65B |
| Revenue (TTM) | $56M | $39.38B | $27.93B | $10.99B | $29.99B |
| Net Income (TTM) | $3M | $9.38B | $8.18B | $414M | $1.12B |
| Gross Margin | 92.8% | 19.9% | 47.8% | 24.3% | 13.6% |
| Operating Margin | 12.8% | 3.9% | 29.5% | 4.9% | 5.8% |
| Forward P/E | 53.0x | 37.6x | 23.1x | 11.2x | 57.4x |
| Total Debt | $8M | $0.00 | $95.62B | $2.76B | $1.19B |
| Cash & Equiv. | $4M | $8.85B | $2.81B | $856M | $440M |
GWRS vs GEV vs NEE vs MHK vs PWR — Long-Term Stock Performance
Price return indexed to 100 at period start. Dividends excluded.
| Stock | Mar 24 | May 26 | Return |
|---|---|---|---|
| Global Water Resour… (GWRS) | 100 | 55.8 | -44.2% |
| GE Vernova Inc. (GEV) | 100 | 764.7 | +664.7% |
| NextEra Energy, Inc. (NEE) | 100 | 146.0 | +46.0% |
| Mohawk Industries, … (MHK) | 100 | 78.5 | -21.5% |
| Quanta Services, In… (PWR) | 100 | 289.0 | +189.0% |
Price return only. Dividends and distributions are not included.
Quick Verdict: GWRS vs GEV vs NEE vs MHK vs PWR
Each card shows where this stock fits in a portfolio — not just who wins on paper.
GWRS ranks third and is worth considering specifically for sleep-well-at-night and defensive.
- Lower volatility, beta 0.71, Low D/E 8.9%, current ratio 0.76x
- Beta 0.71, yield 4.2%, current ratio 0.76x
- 4.2% yield, 4-year raise streak, vs NEE's 2.4%, (1 stock pays no dividend)
GEV has the current edge in this matchup, primarily because of its strength in momentum and efficiency.
- +157.4% vs GWRS's -27.3%
- 15.2% ROA vs GWRS's 0.6%, ROIC 27.9% vs 4.2%
NEE is the #2 pick in this set and the best alternative if income & stability and valuation efficiency is your priority.
- Dividend streak 30 yrs, beta 0.21, yield 2.4%
- PEG 1.33 vs PWR's 3.33
- 29.3% margin vs PWR's 3.7%
- Beta 0.21 vs GEV's 1.76
MHK is the clearest fit if your priority is value.
- Lower P/E (11.2x vs 57.4x)
PWR is the clearest fit if your priority is growth exposure and long-term compounding.
- Rev growth 19.8%, EPS growth 12.8%, 3Y rev CAGR 18.4%
- 31.4% 10Y total return vs GEV's 7.0%
- 19.8% revenue growth vs MHK's -0.5%
See the full category breakdown
| Category | Winner | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Growth | 19.8% revenue growth vs MHK's -0.5% | |
| Value | Lower P/E (11.2x vs 57.4x) | |
| Quality / Margins | 29.3% margin vs PWR's 3.7% | |
| Stability / Safety | Beta 0.21 vs GEV's 1.76 | |
| Dividends | 4.2% yield, 4-year raise streak, vs NEE's 2.4%, (1 stock pays no dividend) | |
| Momentum (1Y) | +157.4% vs GWRS's -27.3% | |
| Efficiency (ROA) | 15.2% ROA vs GWRS's 0.6%, ROIC 27.9% vs 4.2% |
GWRS vs GEV vs NEE vs MHK vs PWR — Revenue Breakdown by Segment
How each company's revenue is distributed across its business units
GWRS vs GEV vs NEE vs MHK vs PWR — Financial Metrics
Side-by-side numbers across 5 stocks — who leads on profitability, valuation, growth, and risk.
Who Leads Where
GEV leads in 2 of 6 categories
MHK leads 1 • GWRS leads 0 • NEE leads 0 • PWR leads 0 • 3 tied
Explore the data ↓Income & Cash Flow (Last 12 Months)
Evenly matched — GEV and NEE 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 — 706.2x GWRS's $56M. NEE is the more profitable business, keeping 29.3% 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 | $56M | $39.4B | $27.9B | $11.0B | $30.0B |
| EBITDAEarnings before interest/tax | $23M | $2.2B | $15.5B | $1.2B | $2.4B |
| Net IncomeAfter-tax profit | $3M | $9.4B | $8.2B | $414M | $1.1B |
| Free Cash FlowCash after capex | -$55M | $3.6B | -$3.8B | $709M | $1.7B |
| Gross MarginGross profit ÷ Revenue | +92.8% | +19.9% | +47.8% | +24.3% | +13.6% |
| Operating MarginEBIT ÷ Revenue | +12.8% | +3.9% | +29.5% | +4.9% | +5.8% |
| Net MarginNet income ÷ Revenue | +5.3% | +23.8% | +29.3% | +3.8% | +3.7% |
| FCF MarginFCF ÷ Revenue | -99.1% | +9.2% | -13.6% | +6.5% | +5.6% |
| Rev. Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | +2.2% | +16.1% | +7.3% | +8.0% | +26.3% |
| EPS Growth (YoY)Latest quarter vs prior year | -3.0% | +18.2% | +160.0% | +65.2% | +51.0% |
Valuation Metrics
MHK leads this category, winning 6 of 7 comparable metrics.
Valuation Metrics
At 17.3x trailing earnings, MHK trades at a 84% valuation discount to PWR's 110.4x P/E. Adjusting for growth (PEG ratio), NEE offers better value at 1.64x vs PWR's 6.40x — a lower PEG means you pay less per unit of expected earnings growth.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Market CapShares × price | $206M | $281.0B | $194.6B | $6.3B | $112.7B |
| Enterprise ValueMkt cap + debt − cash | $209M | $272.2B | $287.4B | $8.2B | $113.4B |
| Trailing P/EPrice ÷ TTM EPS | 65.09x | 59.12x | 28.36x | 17.33x | 110.40x |
| Forward P/EPrice ÷ next-FY EPS est. | 53.04x | 37.62x | 23.07x | 11.23x | 57.40x |
| PEG RatioP/E ÷ EPS growth rate | 3.71x | — | 1.64x | — | 6.40x |
| EV / EBITDAEnterprise value multiple | 9.30x | 121.45x | 18.73x | 7.05x | 45.68x |
| Price / SalesMarket cap ÷ Revenue | 3.69x | 7.38x | 7.08x | 0.58x | 3.97x |
| Price / BookPrice ÷ Book value/share | 2.24x | 23.47x | 2.93x | 0.77x | 12.61x |
| Price / FCFMarket cap ÷ FCF | — | 75.73x | — | 10.20x | 69.50x |
Profitability & Efficiency
GEV leads this category, winning 6 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 $4 for GWRS. GWRS carries lower financial leverage with a 0.09x debt-to-equity ratio, signaling a more conservative balance sheet compared to NEE's 1.44x. On the Piotroski fundamental quality scale (0–9), GEV scores 6/9 vs PWR's 4/9, reflecting solid financial health.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROE (TTM)Return on equity | +3.6% | +79.7% | +12.7% | +5.0% | +13.0% |
| ROA (TTM)Return on assets | +0.6% | +15.2% | +3.9% | +3.0% | +4.8% |
| ROICReturn on invested capital | +4.2% | +27.9% | +4.1% | +3.9% | +11.8% |
| ROCEReturn on capital employed | +1.7% | +6.6% | +4.7% | +4.8% | +11.3% |
| Piotroski ScoreFundamental quality 0–9 | 4 | 6 | 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Debt / EquityFinancial leverage | 0.09x | — | 1.44x | 0.33x | 0.13x |
| Net DebtTotal debt minus cash | $4M | -$8.8B | $92.8B | $1.9B | $748M |
| Cash & Equiv.Liquid assets | $4M | $8.8B | $2.8B | $856M | $440M |
| Total DebtShort + long-term debt | $8M | $0 | $95.6B | $2.8B | $1.2B |
| Interest CoverageEBIT ÷ Interest expense | 1.20x | — | 1.99x | 36.90x | 6.27x |
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 $4,472 for MHK. Over the past 12 months, GEV leads with a +157.4% total return vs GWRS's -27.3%. The 3-year compound annual growth rate (CAGR) favors GEV at 99.9% vs GWRS's -10.3% — a key indicator of consistent wealth creation.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| YTD ReturnYear-to-date | -13.9% | +54.0% | +16.1% | -6.2% | +70.8% |
| 1-Year ReturnPast 12 months | -27.3% | +157.4% | +42.0% | +1.9% | +132.1% |
| 3-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -27.9% | +698.3% | +31.0% | +2.9% | +345.2% |
| 5-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | -47.8% | +698.3% | +38.2% | -55.3% | +651.1% |
| 10-Year ReturnCumulative with dividends | +39.8% | +698.3% | +266.0% | -47.6% | +3143.9% |
| CAGR (3Y)Annualised 3-year return | -10.3% | +99.9% | +9.4% | +0.9% | +64.5% |
Risk & Volatility
Evenly matched — NEE and PWR each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Risk & Volatility
NEE is the less volatile stock with a 0.21 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 GWRS's 64.1% drawdown — a narrower gap to the peak suggests stronger recent price momentum.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Beta (5Y)Sensitivity to S&P 500 | 0.71x | 1.76x | 0.21x | 1.34x | 1.30x |
| 52-Week HighHighest price in past year | $11.17 | $1181.95 | $98.75 | $143.13 | $788.72 |
| 52-Week LowLowest price in past year | $6.96 | $387.03 | $63.88 | $93.60 | $315.45 |
| % of 52W HighCurrent price vs 52-week peak | +64.1% | +88.5% | +94.5% | +71.8% | +95.2% |
| RSI (14)Momentum oscillator 0–100 | 30.9 | 66.5 | 54.3 | 50.6 | 87.0 |
| Avg Volume (50D)Average daily shares traded | 81K | 2.4M | 8.7M | 1.1M | 1.1M |
Analyst Outlook
Evenly matched — GWRS and NEE each lead in 1 of 2 comparable metrics.
Analyst Outlook
Analyst consensus: GWRS as "Buy", GEV as "Buy", NEE as "Buy", MHK as "Hold", PWR as "Buy". Consensus price targets imply 74.6% upside for GWRS (target: $13) vs -13.8% for PWR (target: $647). For income investors, GWRS offers the higher dividend yield at 4.23% vs NEE's 2.40%.
| Metric | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analyst RatingConsensus buy/hold/sell | Buy | Buy | Buy | Hold | Buy |
| Price TargetConsensus 12-month target | $12.50 | $1119.95 | $98.13 | $130.00 | $647.23 |
| # AnalystsCovering analysts | 4 | 28 | 36 | 32 | 35 |
| Dividend YieldAnnual dividend ÷ price | +4.2% | +0.1% | +2.4% | — | +0.1% |
| Dividend StreakConsecutive years of raises | 4 | 1 | 30 | 0 | 7 |
| Dividend / ShareAnnual DPS | $0.30 | $1.00 | $2.24 | — | $0.40 |
| Buyback YieldShare repurchases ÷ mkt cap | 0.0% | +1.2% | 0.0% | +2.4% | +0.1% |
GEV leads in 2 of 6 categories (Profitability & Efficiency, Total Returns). MHK leads in 1 (Valuation Metrics). 3 tied.
GWRS vs GEV vs NEE vs MHK vs PWR: Key Questions Answered
10 questions · data-driven answers · updated daily
01Is GWRS or GEV or NEE or MHK or PWR 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 -0. 5% for Mohawk Industries, Inc. (MHK). Mohawk Industries, Inc. (MHK) offers the better valuation at 17. 3x trailing P/E (11. 2x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Global Water Resources, Inc. (GWRS) a "Buy" — based on 4 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 — GWRS or GEV or NEE or MHK or PWR?
On trailing P/E, Mohawk Industries, Inc.
(MHK) is the cheapest at 17. 3x versus Quanta Services, Inc. at 110. 4x. On forward P/E, Mohawk Industries, Inc. is actually cheaper at 11. 2x. The PEG ratio (P/E divided by earnings growth rate) is the most growth-adjusted single valuation metric: NextEra Energy, Inc. wins at 1. 33x versus Quanta Services, Inc. 's 3. 33x — a reasonable growth-adjusted valuation.
03Which is the better long-term investment — GWRS or GEV or NEE or MHK or PWR?
Over the past 5 years, GE Vernova Inc.
(GEV) delivered a total return of +698. 3%, compared to -55. 3% for Mohawk Industries, Inc. (MHK). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: PWR returned +31. 4% versus MHK's -47. 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 — GWRS or GEV or NEE or MHK or PWR?
By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), NextEra Energy, Inc.
(NEE) is the lower-risk stock at 0. 21β versus GE Vernova Inc. 's 1. 76β — meaning GEV is approximately 748% more volatile than NEE relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Global Water Resources, Inc. (GWRS) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 9% versus 144% for NextEra Energy, Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.
05Which is growing faster — GWRS or GEV or NEE or MHK or PWR?
By revenue growth (latest reported year), Quanta Services, Inc.
(PWR) is pulling ahead at 19. 8% versus -0. 5% for Mohawk Industries, Inc. (MHK). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: GE Vernova Inc. grew EPS 217. 0% year-over-year, compared to -54. 2% for Global Water Resources, Inc.. 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 — GWRS or GEV or NEE or MHK or PWR?
NextEra Energy, Inc.
(NEE) is the more profitable company, earning 24. 9% net margin versus 3. 4% for Mohawk Industries, Inc. — 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 3. 6% for GEV. 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 GWRS or GEV or NEE or MHK or PWR 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, NextEra Energy, Inc. (NEE) is the more undervalued stock at a PEG of 1. 33x versus Quanta Services, Inc. 's 3. 33x. A PEG below 1. 5 suggests fair-to-attractive pricing relative to expected growth. On forward earnings alone, Mohawk Industries, Inc. (MHK) trades at 11. 2x forward P/E versus 57. 4x for Quanta Services, Inc. — 46. 2x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for GWRS: 74. 6% to $12. 50.
08Which pays a better dividend — GWRS or GEV or NEE or MHK or PWR?
In this comparison, GWRS (4.
2% yield), NEE (2. 4% yield) pay a dividend. GEV, MHK, PWR do not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.
09Is GWRS or GEV or NEE or MHK or PWR better for a retirement portfolio?
For long-horizon retirement investors, NextEra Energy, Inc.
(NEE) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0. 21), 2. 4% yield, +266. 0% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (NEE: +266. 0%, MHK: -47. 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 GWRS and GEV and NEE and MHK and PWR?
These companies operate in different sectors (GWRS (Utilities) and GEV (Utilities) and NEE (Utilities) and MHK (Consumer Cyclical) and PWR (Industrials)), which means they face different economic cycles, regulatory environments, and macro sensitivities — making direct comparison nuanced.
In terms of investment character: GWRS is a small-cap income-oriented stock; GEV is a large-cap quality compounder stock; NEE is a mid-cap quality compounder stock; MHK is a small-cap deep-value stock; PWR is a mid-cap high-growth stock. GWRS, NEE pay a dividend while GEV, MHK, 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.