AES vs ATO Stock Comparison
AES currently leads ATO in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 64 vs 57. The clearest difference is value, while ATO has the stronger quality profile.
What is the main difference between AES and ATO?
AES leads the current stock comparison as The AES Corporation, with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
The AES Corporation vs Atmos Energy Corporation
AES leads
AES leads by 7 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Risk Resilience, but the lead has narrowed from 19 points over 30 sessions.
Competitive: 5 of 6 evidence groups support AES, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
The AES Corporation
Atmos Energy Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors AES over ATO, 64 versus 57 as of Oct 31, 2026. AES's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and risk resilience, while ATO holds the stronger quality profile. AES also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 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 19 to 7 points over 30 sessions.
Compare The AES Corporation and Atmos Energy Corporation 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 ATO 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.
- Value74 vs 41AES +33
- Risk Resilience71 vs 58AES +13
- Quality47 vs 57ATO +10
- Momentum70 vs 74ATO +4
5 of 6 evidence groups favor AES. AES’s edge is concentrated in value and risk resilience; ATO keeps a meaningful quality edge.
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 -2, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 2 active signals are unchanged.
AES's lead narrowed by 2 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — AES and ATO both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
AES (The AES Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and risk resilience.
ATO (Atmos Energy Corporation): the counter-case, on quality, momentum — but at materially higher volatility, 19.6% against 2.3%.
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 33 points.
Momentum
ATOATO on the Momentum factor, by 4 points.
Lower downside
AESAES on Risk Resilience, by 13 points.
Analyst upside
AESAES on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
Where the systematic read and the analyst consensus line up — and where they do not.
| Measure | AES | ATO | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +7.9% | +6.7% | AES has more room |
| Target dispersion | 0% | +17.9% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 1 | 7 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | AES | ATO |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 4.20% | 8.97% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $0.573 | $2.350 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $0.704 | $3.610 |
| Years increased | 5 | 5 |
| No cut in window | Yes | Yes |
| Cohort rank | #278 | #123 |
ATO grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 8.97% a year against AES's 4.20%. Neither company reduced its regular dividend in any year of the window.
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 57 |
| Fundamentals | AESon balance | revenue growth 7.6% vs -55.2%; EPS growth -11.8% vs -58.7%; TTM ROE 37.9% vs 9.7%; gross margin 20.3% vs 61%; operating margin 17.5% vs 37% — AES takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | AES | Value 74 vs 41 |
| Technicals | Even | Price vs 50-day -0.2% vs 5.1%; vs 200-day 1.5% vs -2.7% |
| Risk Resilience | AES | Risk Resilience 71 vs 58 |
| Analyst expectations | AES | Target upside 7.9% vs 6.7% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of AES and ATO 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 moderate at 7 points.
- 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 lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 19 to 7 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- AES +7
- 64 vs 57
- 7 sessions ago
- AES +9
- 66 vs 57
- 30 sessions ago
- AES +19
- 66 vs 47
- 90 sessions ago
- AES +16
- 63 vs 47
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 / 1 bearish, conflicted
Only ATO
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (6.18%)
- 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).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.78%, AIQ 0 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.
- 1ATO closes the Value gap — currently 33 points behind, the largest single contributor to AES's edge.
- 2ATO'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 12 points over 30 sessions, and a further 7-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 | ATO |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 7.6% | -55.2% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -11.8% | -58.7% |
| Gross margin | 20.3% | 61% |
| Operating margin | 17.5% | 37% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 37.9% | 9.7% |
| Debt to equity | 6.5 | 0.67 |
Performance
AES leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | AES | ATO |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 0.1% | 1.5% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 0.5% | 8.4% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 0.9% | -2.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 3.7% | -8.7% |
| Year to date | 4.5% | 1.1% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 3% | -3.6% |
Technicals
Split| Metric | AES | ATO |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 60 | 69 |
| ADX (14) | 52.4 | 34 |
| Price vs 50-day | -0.2% | 5.1% |
| Price vs 200-day | 1.5% | -2.7% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 2.3% | 19.6% |
Risk
AES is the more resilient| Metric | AES | ATO |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.32 | -0.2 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.12 | -0.35 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.12 | -0.54 |
| Max drawdown | -19% | -18.8% |
| Current drawdown | -13.3% | -11.8% |
| Annualized volatility | 26.2% | 16% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.7% | -1.7% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, AES or ATO?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, AES is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 64 against ATO's 57. The edge comes from value and risk resilience. ATO is not without a case — it holds the better quality profile, which matters more if that is the objective you are optimizing for. 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 ATO 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 ATO?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. AES leads Value by 33 points; AES leads Risk Resilience by 13 points; ATO leads Quality by 10 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, AES or ATO?
Analyst price targets imply +7.9% upside for AES and +6.7% for ATO, so the Street currently favors AES. The model and the Street agree here, which is a broader base of evidence than either alone. Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions, and dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Which is better value, AES or ATO?
AES is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. AES on the peer-relative Value factor, by 33 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 ATO?
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 ATO?
ATO on the Momentum factor, by 4 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 ATO?
AES is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. AES on Risk Resilience, by 13 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 ATO?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 20.3% vs 61%; operating margin 17.5% vs 37%; ttm roe 37.9% vs 9.7%. AES leads on one measure and ATO 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 ATO getting stronger or weaker?
AES lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 19 to 7 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 ATO verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: ATO closes the Value gap — currently 33 points behind, the largest single contributor to AES's edge; ATO'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 12 points over 30 sessions, and a further 7-point move would eliminate AES's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about AES and ATO?
AES: 3 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. ATO: 1 bullish / 1 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 ATO it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare AES and ATO 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.