AES vs EIX Stock Comparison
AES currently leads EIX in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 64 vs 60. The clearest difference is risk resilience, while EIX has the stronger momentum profile.
What is the main difference between AES and EIX?
AES leads the current stock comparison as The AES Corporation, with the clearest separation coming from risk resilience and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
The AES Corporation vs Edison International
AES leads
AES leads by 4 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Quality, but the lead has narrowed from 16 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors EIX on target upside.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support AES, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
The AES Corporation
Edison International
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors AES over EIX, 64 versus 60 as of Oct 31, 2026. AES's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and quality, while EIX holds the stronger momentum profile. AES also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors EIX. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor AES today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 4 points. AES lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 16 to 4 points over 30 sessions.
Compare The AES Corporation and Edison International 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 EIX 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.
- Risk Resilience71 vs 52AES +19
- Quality47 vs 40AES +7
- Momentum70 vs 74EIX +4
- Value74 vs 71Even
3 of 6 evidence groups favor AES. AES’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and quality; EIX keeps a meaningful momentum 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 +13
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
AES's lead narrowed by 6 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — AES and EIX both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
AES (The AES Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and quality.
EIX (Edison International): the counter-case, on momentum, analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 16.9% 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
EIXEIX on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
EIXEIX on the Momentum factor, by 4 points.
Lower downside
AESAES on Risk Resilience, by 19 points.
Analyst upside
EIXEIX 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 EIX. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | AES | EIX | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +7.9% | +10.3% | EIX has more room |
| Target dispersion | 0% | +67.9% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 1 | 8 | 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 | EIX |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 4.20% | 5.15% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $0.573 | $2.575 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $0.704 | $3.310 |
| Years increased | 5 | 4 |
| No cut in window | Yes | No (1) |
| Cohort rank | #278 | not ranked |
EIX grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 5.15% a year against AES's 4.20%. AES never reduced its regular dividend in the window; EIX did in 1 year.
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
3 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 60 |
| Fundamentals | Even | revenue growth 7.6% vs 6.2%; TTM ROE 37.9% vs 22.1%; gross margin 20.3% vs 39.9%; operating margin 17.5% vs 23.2% |
| Valuation | Even | Value 74 vs 71 |
| Technicals | AES | Price vs 50-day -0.2% vs 0.7%; vs 200-day 1.5% vs -13.3% |
| Risk Resilience | AES | Risk Resilience 71 vs 52 |
| Analyst expectations | EIX | Target upside 7.9% vs 10.3% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of AES and EIX and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion is sensitive to small changes. Treat the lead as provisional and watch the flip conditions below.
- The AIQ gap is narrow at 4 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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 16 to 4 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- AES +4
- 64 vs 60
- 7 sessions ago
- AES +10
- 66 vs 56
- 30 sessions ago
- AES +16
- 66 vs 50
- 90 sessions ago
- AES +4
- 63 vs 59
The lead changed hands 3 times in this window, most recently on Jul 7 when AES moved ahead of EIX.
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 / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only EIX
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (16.20%)
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short 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 down while the AIQ Score moved up 4 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -0.99%, AIQ +4 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.
- 1EIX closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 19 points behind, the largest single contributor to AES's edge.
- 2EIX'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 4-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
Split| Metric | AES | EIX |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 7.6% | 6.2% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -11.8% | 0.7% |
| Gross margin | 20.3% | 39.9% |
| Operating margin | 17.5% | 23.2% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 37.9% | 22.1% |
| Debt to equity | 6.5 | 2.48 |
Performance
AES leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | AES | EIX |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 0.1% | 2.9% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 0.5% | 9.5% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 0.9% | -25.3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 3.7% | -13.4% |
| Year to date | 4.5% | -2% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 3% | 1.8% |
Technicals
AES has the stronger structure| Metric | AES | EIX |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 60 | 84.7 |
| ADX (14) | 52.4 | 19.9 |
| Price vs 50-day | -0.2% | 0.7% |
| Price vs 200-day | 1.5% | -13.3% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 2.3% | 16.9% |
Risk
AES is the more resilient| Metric | AES | EIX |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.32 | 0.03 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.12 | 0.22 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.12 | 0.21 |
| Max drawdown | -19% | -36% |
| Current drawdown | -13.3% | -26.8% |
| Annualized volatility | 26.2% | 36.3% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.7% | -3.1% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, AES or EIX?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, AES is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 64 against EIX's 60. The edge comes from risk resilience and quality. EIX is not without a case — it holds the better momentum 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 EIX the better buy right now?
AES carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 31, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 4 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor AES over EIX?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. AES leads Risk Resilience by 19 points; AES leads Quality by 7 points; EIX leads Momentum by 4 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, AES or EIX?
Analyst price targets imply +7.9% upside for AES and +10.3% for EIX, so the Street currently favors EIX. 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 EIX?
Neither name separates on the peer-relative Value factor. The two are level on Value. 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 EIX?
EIX 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 EIX?
EIX 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 EIX?
AES is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. AES on Risk Resilience, by 19 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 EIX?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 20.3% vs 39.9%; operating margin 17.5% vs 23.2%; ttm roe 37.9% vs 22.1%. AES leads on one measure and EIX 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 EIX getting stronger or weaker?
AES lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 16 to 4 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-29 and 2026-10-28. The lead has changed hands 3 times in that window, most recently on 2026-07-07, when AES moved ahead of EIX.
What would change the AES vs EIX verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: EIX closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 19 points behind, the largest single contributor to AES's edge; EIX'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 4-point move would eliminate AES's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about AES and EIX?
AES: 3 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. EIX: 1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, 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 EIX it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare AES and EIX 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.