BEP vs SPWR Stock Comparison
Compare BEP and SPWR across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between BEP and SPWR?
SPWR leads the current stock comparison as SunPower Inc., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Brookfield Renewable Partners L.P. vs SunPower Inc.
SPWR leads
SPWR leads by 23 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Momentum, and the lead has widened from 15 points over 30 sessions.
Competitive: 3 of 6 evidence groups support SPWR, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Brookfield Renewable Partners L.P.
SunPower Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors SPWR over BEP, 60 versus 37 as of Sep 11, 2026. SPWR's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and momentum, while BEP holds the stronger risk resilience profile. SPWR also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor SPWR today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. SPWR lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 15 to 23 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Brookfield Renewable Partners L.P. and SunPower Inc. 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 BEP and SPWR 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.
- Quality14 vs 78SPWR +64
- Momentum25 vs 52SPWR +27
- Risk Resilience53 vs 30BEP +23
- Value61 vs 65SPWR +4
3 of 6 evidence groups favor SPWR. SPWR’s edge is concentrated in quality and momentum; BEP keeps a meaningful risk resilience 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: Risk Resilience -1
New signals
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum +2
No new signals fired.
SPWR's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — BEP and SPWR both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
SPWR (SunPower Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and momentum.
BEP (Brookfield Renewable Partners L.P.): the counter-case, on risk resilience, fundamentals, technicals.
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
SPWRSPWR on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
BEPBEP on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
SPWRSPWR on the peer-relative Value factor, by 4 points.
Momentum
SPWRSPWR on the Momentum factor, by 27 points.
Lower downside
BEPBEP on Risk Resilience, by 23 points.
Analyst upside
SPWRSPWR 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 | BEP | SPWR | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +28.3% | +1682% | SPWR has more room |
| Target dispersion | +30.8% | 0% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 6 | 1 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor SPWR. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | SPWR | 37 vs 60 |
| Fundamentals | BEPon balance | revenue growth 9.4% vs -24.6%; EPS growth 10% vs -80.9%; TTM ROE 2.6% vs 26.1%; gross margin 24.4% vs 48.8%; operating margin 10.6% vs -24.5% — BEP takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | SPWR | Value 61 vs 65 |
| Technicals | BEP | Price vs 50-day -6.9% vs -15.5%; vs 200-day -2.4% vs -67.7% |
| Risk Resilience | BEP | Risk Resilience 53 vs 30 |
| Analyst expectations | SPWR | Target upside 28.3% vs 1682% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of BEP and SPWR 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 23 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (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 SPWR.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10SPWR lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 15 to 23 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- SPWR +23
- 37 vs 60
- 7 sessions ago
- SPWR +26
- 36 vs 62
- 30 sessions ago
- SPWR +15
- 43 vs 58
- 90 sessions ago
- SPWR +18
- 39 vs 57
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.
2 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (2.46%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (172.10%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (14.04%)
SPWR 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.
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -0.39%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -3.77%, 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.
- 1BEP closes the Quality gap — currently 64 points behind, the largest single contributor to SPWR's edge.
- 2BEP's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3SPWR's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once.
- 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
BEP leads on balance| Metric | BEP | SPWR |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 9.4% | -24.6% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 10% | -80.9% |
| Gross margin | 24.4% | 48.8% |
| Operating margin | 10.6% | -24.5% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 2.6% | 26.1% |
| Debt to equity | 8.43 | -5.03 |
Performance
BEP leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | BEP | SPWR |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -1.7% | 31.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -10.4% | 34.8% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -13.5% | -55.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -0.1% | -74.8% |
| Year to date | 13.1% | -77.7% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 21.9% | -76.7% |
Technicals
BEP has the stronger structure| Metric | BEP | SPWR |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 28.2 | 62.7 |
| ADX (14) | 18.6 | 23.5 |
| Price vs 50-day | -6.9% | -15.5% |
| Price vs 200-day | -2.4% | -67.7% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 29.1% | 234.3% |
Risk
BEP is the more resilient| Metric | BEP | SPWR |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.85 | 2.55 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.66 | -0.82 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.07 | -1.29 |
| Max drawdown | -18.2% | -89.7% |
| Current drawdown | -18.2% | -83.4% |
| Annualized volatility | 29.6% | 109.9% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.8% | -9.1% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, BEP or SPWR?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, SPWR is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 60 against BEP's 37. The edge comes from quality and momentum. BEP is not without a case — it holds the better risk resilience 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 BEP or SPWR the better buy right now?
SPWR carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 3 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 SPWR over BEP?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. SPWR leads Quality by 64 points; SPWR leads Momentum by 27 points; BEP leads Risk Resilience by 23 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, BEP or SPWR?
Analyst price targets imply +28.3% upside for BEP and +1682% for SPWR, so the Street currently favors SPWR. 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, BEP or SPWR?
SPWR is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. SPWR on the peer-relative Value factor, by 4 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, BEP or SPWR?
BEP 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, BEP or SPWR?
SPWR on the Momentum factor, by 27 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, BEP or SPWR?
BEP is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. BEP on Risk Resilience, by 23 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 BEP more profitable than SPWR?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 24.4% vs 48.8%; operating margin 10.6% vs -24.5%; ttm roe 2.6% vs 26.1%. BEP leads on one measure and SPWR 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 SPWR's lead over BEP getting stronger or weaker?
SPWR lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 15 to 23 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 BEP vs SPWR verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: BEP closes the Quality gap — currently 64 points behind, the largest single contributor to SPWR's edge; BEP's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it; SPWR's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once; 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 BEP and SPWR?
BEP: 2 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. SPWR: 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 BEP is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On SPWR it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare BEP and SPWR 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.