AES vs AQN Stock Comparison
AES currently leads AQN in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 64 vs 50. The clearest difference is quality.
What is the main difference between AES and AQN?
AES leads the current stock comparison as The AES Corporation, with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
The AES Corporation vs Algonquin Power & Utilities Corp.
AES leads
AES leads by 14 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Value, but the lead has narrowed from 23 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors AQN on target upside.
Competitive: 5 of 6 evidence groups support AES, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
The AES Corporation
Algonquin Power & Utilities Corp.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors AES over AQN, 64 versus 50 as of Oct 31, 2026. AES's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and value. AES also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors AQN. 5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor AES today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader's advantage has been narrowing. AES lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 23 to 14 points over 30 sessions. AES leads on all four AIQ factor dimensions. Value is itself one of those four, so a sweep is not explained by valuation alone — it deserves additional scrutiny for unmodeled catalysts, expectations or event risk.
Compare The AES Corporation and Algonquin Power & Utilities Corp. across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Performance over time
Total return with distributions reinvested, from daily closes.
Total return comparison
Growth of $10,000, distributions reinvested
Split-adjusted closes; each distribution is reinvested at the close on its ex-dividend date. Taxes and trading costs are not modeled.
Compare AES and AQN against another ticker
Open a multi-ticker workspace without changing this focused pair page.
AIQ Factor Divergence
Where the two separate, on the four dimensions behind the AIQ Score. Bars read outward from a shared zero: further from the centre is a wider gap.
- Quality47 vs 32AES +15
- Value74 vs 59AES +15
- Momentum70 vs 56AES +14
- Risk Resilience71 vs 61AES +10
5 of 6 evidence groups favor AES. AES’s edge is concentrated in quality and value.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-28, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-27.
Largest factor move: Momentum -8
New signals
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum -16
New signals
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
AES's lead widened by 3 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — AES and AQN both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
AES (The AES Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and value.
AQN (Algonquin Power & Utilities Corp.): the counter-case, on analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 17.1% against 2.3%.
The AIQ Score and Wall Street therefore point in different directions on this pair.
Which one fits your objective
The same two names rank differently depending on what you are optimizing for. All six reads are shown at once — none of them is hidden behind a toggle.
Balanced
AESAES on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
AESAES on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
AESAES on the peer-relative Value factor, by 15 points.
Momentum
AESAES on the Momentum factor, by 14 points.
Lower downside
AESAES on Risk Resilience, by 10 points.
Analyst upside
AQNAQN on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors AES, analyst targets favor AQN. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | AES | AQN | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +7.9% | +9.9% | AQN has more room |
| Target dispersion | 0% | 0% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 1 | 1 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
The two are measuring different things. The AIQ Score reads current fundamentals, valuation, trend and risk; analyst targets price forward expectations. A divergence of this kind is either a contrarian opportunity or a sign the model is missing something already priced in — it is worth resolving before acting on either.
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | AES | AQN |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 4.20% | -15.58% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $0.573 | $0.606 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $0.704 | $0.260 |
| Years increased | 5 | 2 |
| No cut in window | Yes | No (3) |
| Cohort rank | #278 | not ranked |
AES grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 4.20% a year against AQN's -15.58%. AES never reduced its regular dividend in the window; AQN did in 3 years.
Yield and payout ratio shown elsewhere on this page are current values, not part of the study window.
Split-adjusted regular dividends per share, 2020–2025, excluding special dividends. Research as of Sep 19, 2026.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor AES. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | AES | 64 vs 50 |
| Fundamentals | AESon balance | revenue growth 7.6% vs -31.4%; EPS growth -11.8% vs -98.8%; TTM ROE 37.9% vs 3.2%; gross margin 20.3% vs 45.4%; operating margin 17.5% vs 20.5% — AES takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | AES | Value 74 vs 59 |
| Technicals | AES | Price vs 50-day -0.2% vs 2.1%; vs 200-day 1.5% vs -10.4% |
| Risk Resilience | AES | Risk Resilience 71 vs 61 |
| Analyst expectations | AQN | Target upside 7.9% vs 9.9% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of AES and AQN and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
- The AIQ gap is wide at 14 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 5 of 6 covered evidence groups point the same way. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
Stability combines the score gap, how broadly the evidence agrees, how steady the lead has been across daily snapshots, the current signal state on both names, and analyst dispersion on AES.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 29 – Oct 28AES lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 23 to 14 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- AES +14
- 64 vs 50
- 7 sessions ago
- AES +11
- 66 vs 55
- 30 sessions ago
- AES +23
- 66 vs 43
- 90 sessions ago
- AES +18
- 63 vs 45
The lead has not changed hands in this window.
AIQ Signal Divergence
Only the signals that bear on the head-to-head. A conflicted name is carrying bullish and bearish rules at the same time — the technical evidence is not pointing one way.
3 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only AES
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (0.70%)
- ATR Contraction - Coiling — neutral, volatility, short horizon (0.32%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
1 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted
Only AQN
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (11.49%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
AES leads the comparison while carrying a conflicted signal state, which is one reason the stability rating is not higher.
Price vs model alignment
Whether the latest session's price move confirms what the model did over the same session, or contradicts it.
Price and the AIQ Score both moved down over the latest session (price -1.46%, AIQ -2 points).
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 5 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +0.55%, AIQ -5 points).
What would flip this result
A state, not a forecast. These are the specific, observable changes that would reverse the verdict — not a price prediction.
- 1AQN closes the Quality gap — currently 15 points behind, the largest single contributor to AES's edge.
- 2AQN's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3AES's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 9 points over 30 sessions, and a further 14-point move would eliminate AES's advantage entirely.
The full evidence
Every number behind the verdict. The leader is called above each group so you are not left to solve it from the table.
Fundamentals
AES leads on balance| Metric | AES | AQN |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 7.6% | -31.4% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -11.8% | -98.8% |
| Gross margin | 20.3% | 45.4% |
| Operating margin | 17.5% | 20.5% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 37.9% | 3.2% |
| Debt to equity | 6.5 | 1.44 |
Performance
AES leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | AES | AQN |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 0.1% | 0.6% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 0.5% | 6.2% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 0.9% | -10.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 3.7% | -13.3% |
| Year to date | 4.5% | -13.2% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 3% | -7.3% |
Technicals
AES has the stronger structure| Metric | AES | AQN |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 60 | 66.7 |
| ADX (14) | 52.4 | 25.4 |
| Price vs 50-day | -0.2% | 2.1% |
| Price vs 200-day | 1.5% | -10.4% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 2.3% | 17.1% |
Risk
AES is the more resilient| Metric | AES | AQN |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.32 | 0.25 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.12 | -0.32 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.12 | -0.4 |
| Max drawdown | -19% | -28.4% |
| Current drawdown | -13.3% | -23.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 26.2% | 25.4% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.7% | -2.1% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, AES or AQN?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, AES is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 64 against AQN's 50. The edge comes from quality and value. This is a systematic score, not a recommendation: it ranks the two on the same evidence, it does not know your holding period or tax position.
Is AES or AQN the better buy right now?
AES carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 31, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 5 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Competitive rating means the two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
Why does the AIQ Score favor AES over AQN?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. AES leads Quality by 15 points; AES leads Value by 15 points; AES leads Momentum by 14 points. AES leads on all four AIQ factor dimensions. Value is itself one of those four, so the sweep is not explained by AQN simply being cheaper — it warrants extra scrutiny for unmodeled catalysts, forward expectations or event risk the factors do not capture.
Which has more analyst upside, AES or AQN?
Analyst price targets imply +7.9% upside for AES and +9.9% for AQN, so the Street currently favors AQN. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors AES. The two are measuring different things: the model reads current fundamentals, valuation, trend and risk; the Street is pricing forward expectations. A divergence of this kind is either a contrarian opportunity or a sign the model is missing something the analysts have already priced — it is the single most useful row on this page to investigate. Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions, and dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Which is better value, AES or AQN?
AES is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. AES on the peer-relative Value factor, by 15 points. The Value factor reads valuation relative to sector peers and to the company's own fundamental quality, so it is not the same as simply having the lower multiple.
Which has stronger growth, AES or AQN?
AES on combined revenue and EPS growth. Growth here is measured on reported revenue and earnings, not on forward estimates — it describes what the businesses have delivered, not what the Street expects next.
Which has stronger momentum, AES or AQN?
AES on the Momentum factor, by 14 points. Momentum is one of the four weighted factors in the AIQ composite. It has documented persistence over three- to twelve-month horizons, which makes it a timing input rather than a reason to hold something indefinitely.
Which is riskier, AES or AQN?
AES is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. AES on Risk Resilience, by 10 points. Risk Resilience is a weighted factor in the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is AES more profitable than AQN?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 20.3% vs 45.4%; operating margin 17.5% vs 20.5%; ttm roe 37.9% vs 3.2%. AES leads on one measure and AQN on two measures, and there is no single profitability composite that resolves the split — which of the two reads as "more profitable" depends on whether you weight pricing power or operating leverage.
Is AES's lead over AQN getting stronger or weaker?
AES lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 23 to 14 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-29 and 2026-10-28. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the AES vs AQN verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: AQN closes the Quality gap — currently 15 points behind, the largest single contributor to AES's edge; AQN's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; AES's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 9 points over 30 sessions, and a further 14-point move would eliminate AES's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about AES and AQN?
AES: 3 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. AQN: 1 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted. A conflicted state means bullish and bearish rules are active on the same name at once — the technical evidence is not pointing one way, and a decision taken on it carries more timing risk. The most decision-relevant rule on AES is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On AQN it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare AES and AQN with others
Continue your research
This page answers which of the two. These answer the questions on either side of it.
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk, each carrying a fixed weight. Sentiment is reported separately as SentimentPulse and is not folded into the composite. Scores refresh every trading day, and this page regenerates from the latest snapshot rather than being written once.
The verdict names a leader, states how broadly six independent evidence groups agree, and rates how durable that conclusion is given the score gap, its recent trajectory and the current signal state on both names.
How to use side-by-side comparison →This comparison is informational and educational, not investment advice. AIQ scores update daily; re-check after earnings, guidance or macro data that materially changes either name’s factor profile.