BKH vs CMS Stock Comparison
Compare BKH and CMS across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between BKH and CMS?
BKH leads the current stock comparison as Black Hills Corporation, with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Black Hills Corporation vs CMS Energy Corporation
BKH leads
BKH leads by 4 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Value, but the lead has narrowed from 7 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors CMS on target upside.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support BKH, its lead is narrowing, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Black Hills Corporation
CMS Energy Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors BKH over CMS, 47 versus 43 as of Sep 11, 2026. BKH's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and value. BKH also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors CMS. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor BKH today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 4 points. BKH lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 7 to 4 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Black Hills Corporation and CMS 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 BKH and CMS 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.
- Momentum38 vs 27BKH +11
- Value56 vs 52BKH +4
- Risk Resilience55 vs 53Even
- Quality40 vs 41Even
3 of 6 evidence groups favor BKH. BKH’s edge is concentrated in momentum and value.
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 -9
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum +1
No new signals fired.
BKH's lead narrowed by 3 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — BKH and CMS both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
BKH (Black Hills Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and value.
CMS (CMS Energy Corporation): the counter-case, on fundamentals, analyst expectations.
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
BKHBKH on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
CMSCMS on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
BKHBKH on the peer-relative Value factor, by 4 points.
Momentum
BKHBKH on the Momentum factor, by 11 points.
Lower downside
CMSCMS carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
CMSCMS on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors BKH, analyst targets favor CMS. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | BKH | CMS | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +18.5% | +20.6% | CMS has more room |
| Target dispersion | +15.4% | +14.8% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 2 | 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.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor BKH. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | BKH | 47 vs 43 |
| Fundamentals | CMSon balance | revenue growth -42% vs -33%; EPS growth -71.3% vs -65.5%; TTM ROE 7.7% vs 11%; gross margin 42.9% vs 69.7%; operating margin 23.8% vs 18.9% — CMS takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | BKH | Value 56 vs 52 |
| Technicals | BKH | Price vs 50-day -2.9% vs -6.5%; vs 200-day -0.6% vs -7.7% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 55 vs 53 |
| Analyst expectations | CMS | Target upside 18.5% vs 20.6% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of BKH and CMS 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'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 BKH.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10BKH lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 7 to 4 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- BKH +4
- 47 vs 43
- 7 sessions ago
- BKH +7
- 49 vs 42
- 30 sessions ago
- BKH +7
- 50 vs 43
- 90 sessions ago
- CMS +6
- 47 vs 53
The lead changed hands 6 times in this window, most recently on Jul 30 when BKH moved ahead of CMS.
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 / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (1.06%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
1 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (2.32%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- 52-Week Low Proximity — bearish, risk, long horizon (0.7%)
CMS 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.
Price and the AIQ Score both moved down over the latest session (price -1.36%, AIQ -2 points).
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -0.78%, 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.
- 1CMS closes the Momentum gap — currently 11 points behind, the largest single contributor to BKH's edge.
- 2CMS's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3BKH's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 3 points over 30 sessions, and a further 4-point move would eliminate BKH'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
CMS leads on balance| Metric | BKH | CMS |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -42% | -33% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -71.3% | -65.5% |
| Gross margin | 42.9% | 69.7% |
| Operating margin | 23.8% | 18.9% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 7.7% | 11% |
| Debt to equity | 1.14 | 1.97 |
Performance
BKH leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | BKH | CMS |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -0.4% | -0.6% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -1.2% | -3.3% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 0.5% | -7.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 3.1% | -10.8% |
| Year to date | 4.1% | -2.7% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 23.6% | -4.3% |
Technicals
BKH has the stronger structure| Metric | BKH | CMS |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 45.1 | 32.1 |
| ADX (14) | 8.3 | 17.2 |
| Price vs 50-day | -2.9% | -6.5% |
| Price vs 200-day | -0.6% | -7.7% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 17.1% | 12.8% |
Risk
Split| Metric | BKH | CMS |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.07 | -0.16 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.86 | -0.42 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.32 | -0.61 |
| Max drawdown | -11.8% | -15.3% |
| Current drawdown | -5.9% | -15.3% |
| Annualized volatility | 22.9% | 17.2% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.2% | -1.8% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, BKH or CMS?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, BKH is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 47 against CMS's 43. The edge comes from momentum and value. 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 BKH or CMS the better buy right now?
BKH carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 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 BKH over CMS?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. BKH leads Momentum by 11 points; BKH leads Value by 4 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, BKH or CMS?
Analyst price targets imply +18.5% upside for BKH and +20.6% for CMS, so the Street currently favors CMS. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors BKH. 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, BKH or CMS?
BKH is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. BKH 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, BKH or CMS?
CMS 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, BKH or CMS?
BKH on the Momentum factor, by 11 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, BKH or CMS?
CMS is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. CMS carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility. Risk Resilience is a weighted factor in the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is BKH more profitable than CMS?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 42.9% vs 69.7%; operating margin 23.8% vs 18.9%; ttm roe 7.7% vs 11%. BKH leads on one measure and CMS 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 BKH's lead over CMS getting stronger or weaker?
BKH lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 7 to 4 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 6 times in that window, most recently on 2026-07-30, when BKH moved ahead of CMS.
What would change the BKH vs CMS verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: CMS closes the Momentum gap — currently 11 points behind, the largest single contributor to BKH's edge; CMS's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; BKH's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 3 points over 30 sessions, and a further 4-point move would eliminate BKH's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about BKH and CMS?
BKH: 2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. CMS: 1 bullish / 3 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 BKH is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On CMS it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare BKH and CMS 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.