AES vs CEG Stock Comparison
Compare AES and CEG across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between AES and CEG?
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 Constellation Energy Corporation
AES leads
AES leads by 8 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Risk Resilience, and the lead has widened from 0 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors CEG on target upside.
Stable: 4 of 6 evidence groups support AES, its lead is widening, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
The AES Corporation
Constellation Energy Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors AES over CEG, 64 versus 56 as of Sep 11, 2026. AES's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and risk resilience, while CEG holds the stronger quality profile. AES also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors CEG. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor AES today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability. AES lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 0 to 8 points over 30 sessions.
Compare The AES Corporation and Constellation Energy Corporation across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Performance over time
Price-return comparison using available daily close history.
Total return comparison
Growth of $10,000
Based on available close-price history. Distribution reinvestment is not added unless already reflected in the source series.
Compare AES and CEG 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 40AES +34
- Quality47 vs 63CEG +16
- Risk Resilience71 vs 57AES +14
- Momentum67 vs 67Even
4 of 6 evidence groups favor AES. AES’s edge is concentrated in value and risk resilience; CEG keeps a meaningful quality edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-10, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-09.
Largest factor move: Momentum -11
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum -8
No new signals fired.
AES's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — AES and CEG 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.
CEG (Constellation Energy Corporation): the counter-case, on quality, analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 34.6% against 2.9%.
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 34 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
AESAES on Risk Resilience, by 14 points.
Analyst upside
CEGCEG 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 CEG. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | AES | CEG | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +8.2% | +25.5% | CEG has more room |
| Target dispersion | 0% | +40.6% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 1 | 12 | 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.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
4 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 56 |
| Fundamentals | AESon balance | revenue growth 7.6% vs -32.5%; EPS growth -11.8% vs -67.7%; TTM ROE 37.9% vs 14.7%; gross margin 20.3% vs 94.9%; operating margin 17.5% vs 14.7% — AES takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | AES | Value 74 vs 40 |
| Technicals | Even | Price vs 50-day 0.3% vs 6%; vs 200-day 1.3% vs -3.2% |
| Risk Resilience | AES | Risk Resilience 71 vs 57 |
| Analyst expectations | CEG | Target upside 8.2% vs 25.5% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of AES and CEG and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion rests on a wide gap and broad agreement. It is unlikely to turn on a single session.
- The AIQ gap is moderate at 8 points.
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's signal state is cleanly positive. (supports the conclusion holding)
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
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10AES lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 0 to 8 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- AES +8
- 64 vs 56
- 7 sessions ago
- AES +4
- 63 vs 59
- 30 sessions ago
- Level
- 55 vs 55
- 90 sessions ago
- AES +17
- 61 vs 44
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.
4 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (0.97%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
1 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (10.05%)
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
CEG is conflicted, so the timing case there is weaker than the score alone suggests.
Price vs model alignment
Whether the latest session's price move confirms what the model did over the same session, or contradicts it.
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -0.07%, AIQ -2 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved down over the latest session (price -0.43%, AIQ -2 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.
- 1CEG closes the Value gap — currently 34 points behind, the largest single contributor to AES's edge.
- 2CEG's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3AES's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict.
- 4A regime shift changes factor weighting — Quality and Value carry the heaviest weights in the composite, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
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 | CEG |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 7.6% | -32.5% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -11.8% | -67.7% |
| Gross margin | 20.3% | 94.9% |
| Operating margin | 17.5% | 14.7% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 37.9% | 14.7% |
| Debt to equity | 6.5 | 0.77 |
Performance
AES leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | AES | CEG |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 0% | -1.4% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 0.6% | 2.6% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 1.2% | 18% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 4% | -4.9% |
| Year to date | 3.2% | -19.1% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 16.4% | -4.3% |
Technicals
Split| Metric | AES | CEG |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 56 | 60.1 |
| ADX (14) | 21.4 | 17.5 |
| Price vs 50-day | 0.3% | 6% |
| Price vs 200-day | 1.3% | -3.2% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 2.9% | 34.6% |
Risk
AES is the more resilient| Metric | AES | CEG |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.44 | 1.35 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.51 | 0.05 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.58 | 0.07 |
| Max drawdown | -19% | -41.5% |
| Current drawdown | -14.3% | -29.2% |
| Annualized volatility | 33.3% | 47.5% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2% | -4.6% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, AES or CEG?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, AES is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 64 against CEG's 56. The edge comes from value and risk resilience. CEG 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 CEG the better buy right now?
AES carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Stable — 4 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Stable rating means the gap is wide and the evidence is broad, so the conclusion is unlikely to turn on a single session.
Why does the AIQ Score favor AES over CEG?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. AES leads Value by 34 points; CEG leads Quality by 16 points; AES leads Risk Resilience by 14 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, AES or CEG?
Analyst price targets imply +8.2% upside for AES and +25.5% for CEG, so the Street currently favors CEG. 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 CEG?
AES is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. AES on the peer-relative Value factor, by 34 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 CEG?
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 CEG?
The two are level on Momentum. 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 CEG?
AES is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. AES on Risk Resilience, by 14 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 CEG?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 20.3% vs 94.9%; operating margin 17.5% vs 14.7%; ttm roe 37.9% vs 14.7%. AES leads on two measures and CEG on one measure, 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 CEG getting stronger or weaker?
AES lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 0 to 8 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the AES vs CEG verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: CEG closes the Value gap — currently 34 points behind, the largest single contributor to AES's edge; CEG's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; AES's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict; a regime shift changes factor weighting — Quality and Value carry the heaviest weights in the composite, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
What do the current signals say about AES and CEG?
AES: 4 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. CEG: 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 CEG it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare AES and CEG 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.