BEP vs WKHS Stock Comparison
Compare BEP and WKHS across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between BEP and WKHS?
BEP leads the current stock comparison as Brookfield Renewable Partners L.P., with the clearest separation coming from risk resilience and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Brookfield Renewable Partners L.P. vs Workhorse Group Inc.
BEP leads
BEP leads by 7 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Value, and the lead has widened from 4 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors WKHS on target upside.
Competitive: 5 of 6 evidence groups support BEP, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Brookfield Renewable Partners L.P.
Workhorse Group Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors BEP over WKHS, 37 versus 30 as of Sep 11, 2026. BEP's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and value, while WKHS holds the stronger momentum profile. BEP also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors WKHS. 5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor BEP today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. BEP lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 4 to 7 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Brookfield Renewable Partners L.P. and Workhorse Group 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 WKHS 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 Resilience53 vs 25BEP +28
- Momentum25 vs 52WKHS +27
- Value61 vs 43BEP +18
- Quality14 vs 0BEP +14
5 of 6 evidence groups favor BEP. BEP’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and value; WKHS keeps a meaningful momentum 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 +3
No new signals fired.
BEP's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — BEP and WKHS both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
BEP (Brookfield Renewable Partners L.P.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and value.
WKHS (Workhorse Group Inc.): the counter-case, on momentum, analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 81.6% against 29.1%.
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
BEPBEP on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
BEPBEP on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
BEPBEP on the peer-relative Value factor, by 18 points.
Momentum
WKHSWKHS on the Momentum factor, by 27 points.
Lower downside
BEPBEP on Risk Resilience, by 28 points.
Analyst upside
WKHSWKHS on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors BEP, analyst targets favor WKHS. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | BEP | WKHS | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +28.3% | +99.3% | WKHS has more room |
| Target dispersion | +30.8% | 0% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 6 | 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.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor BEP. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | BEP | 37 vs 30 |
| Fundamentals | BEP | revenue growth 9.4% vs -17.7%; EPS growth 10% vs 6.5%; TTM ROE 2.6% vs -253.4%; gross margin 24.4% vs -55.3%; operating margin 10.6% vs -266.1% |
| Valuation | BEP | Value 61 vs 43 |
| Technicals | BEP | Price vs 50-day -6.9% vs 0%; vs 200-day -2.4% vs -13.2% |
| Risk Resilience | BEP | Risk Resilience 53 vs 25 |
| Analyst expectations | WKHS | Target upside 28.3% vs 99.3% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of BEP and WKHS 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 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 BEP.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10BEP lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 4 to 7 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- BEP +7
- 37 vs 30
- 7 sessions ago
- BEP +7
- 36 vs 29
- 30 sessions ago
- BEP +4
- 43 vs 39
- 90 sessions ago
- BEP +7
- 39 vs 32
The lead changed hands 4 times in this window, most recently on Sep 2 when BEP moved ahead of WKHS.
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 (16.35%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (8.79%)
BEP 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).
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -0.99%, AIQ +1 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.
- 1WKHS closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 28 points behind, the largest single contributor to BEP's edge.
- 2WKHS's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3BEP's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 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 | WKHS |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 9.4% | -17.7% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 10% | 6.5% |
| Gross margin | 24.4% | -55.3% |
| Operating margin | 10.6% | -266.1% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 2.6% | -253.4% |
| Debt to equity | 8.43 | 3.88 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | BEP | WKHS |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -1.7% | -6.7% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -10.4% | -1.6% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -13.5% | -1.3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -0.1% | -13.1% |
| Year to date | 13.1% | -40.3% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 21.9% | 153.3% |
Technicals
BEP has the stronger structure| Metric | BEP | WKHS |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 28.2 | 46.6 |
| ADX (14) | 18.6 | 24 |
| Price vs 50-day | -6.9% | 0% |
| Price vs 200-day | -2.4% | -13.2% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 29.1% | 81.6% |
Risk
BEP is the more resilient| Metric | BEP | WKHS |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.85 | -0.06 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.66 | 0.89 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.07 | 16.17 |
| Max drawdown | -18.2% | -69.2% |
| Current drawdown | -18.2% | -60% |
| Annualized volatility | 29.6% | 879.1% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.8% | -8.1% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, BEP or WKHS?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, BEP is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 37 against WKHS's 30. The edge comes from risk resilience and value. WKHS 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 BEP or WKHS the better buy right now?
BEP carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 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 BEP over WKHS?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. BEP leads Risk Resilience by 28 points; WKHS leads Momentum by 27 points; BEP leads Value by 18 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, BEP or WKHS?
Analyst price targets imply +28.3% upside for BEP and +99.3% for WKHS, so the Street currently favors WKHS. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors BEP. 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, BEP or WKHS?
BEP is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. BEP on the peer-relative Value factor, by 18 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 WKHS?
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 WKHS?
WKHS 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 WKHS?
BEP is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. BEP on Risk Resilience, by 28 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 WKHS?
BEP leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 24.4% vs -55.3%; operating margin 10.6% vs -266.1%; ttm roe 2.6% vs -253.4%.
Is BEP's lead over WKHS getting stronger or weaker?
BEP lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 4 to 7 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has changed hands 4 times in that window, most recently on 2026-09-02, when BEP moved ahead of WKHS.
What would change the BEP vs WKHS verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: WKHS closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 28 points behind, the largest single contributor to BEP's edge; WKHS's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; BEP's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 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 WKHS?
BEP: 2 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. WKHS: 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 WKHS it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare BEP and WKHS 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.