CMS vs CPK Stock Comparison
CPK currently leads CMS in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 55 vs 52. The clearest difference is momentum, while CMS has the stronger value profile.
What is the main difference between CMS and CPK?
CPK leads the current stock comparison as Chesapeake Utilities Corporation, with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
CMS Energy Corporation vs Chesapeake Utilities Corporation
CPK leads
CPK leads by 3 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Quality, having only recently taken the lead back from CMS. Wall Street currently favors CMS on target upside.
Fragile: 1 of 6 evidence groups support CPK, the lead recently changed hands, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
CMS Energy Corporation
Chesapeake Utilities Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors CPK over CMS, 55 versus 52 as of Oct 31, 2026. CPK's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and quality, while CMS holds the stronger value profile. CPK also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors CMS. 1 of 6 covered evidence groups favor CPK today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 3 points. CPK lead: Reversed — CMS led by 1 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; CPK now leads by 3.
Compare CMS Energy Corporation and Chesapeake Utilities Corporation 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 CMS and CPK 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.
- Momentum68 vs 78CPK +10
- Quality41 vs 47CPK +6
- Value52 vs 46CMS +6
- Risk Resilience50 vs 51Even
1 of 6 evidence groups favor CPK. CPK’s edge is concentrated in momentum and quality; CMS keeps a meaningful value 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 -5
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 2 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum -3
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
CPK's lead widened by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CMS and CPK both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
CPK (Chesapeake Utilities Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and quality.
CMS (CMS Energy Corporation): the counter-case, on value, fundamentals, valuation.
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
CPKCPK on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
EvenGrowth figures are not covered for both names.
Value
CMSCMS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 6 points.
Momentum
CPKCPK on the Momentum factor, by 10 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 CPK, analyst targets favor CMS. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | CMS | CPK | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +11.3% | +2.6% | CMS has more room |
| Target dispersion | +21.8% | +11.4% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 11 | 3 | 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 | CMS | CPK |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 5.89% | 9.33% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $1.630 | $1.725 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $2.170 | $2.695 |
| Years increased | 5 | 5 |
| No cut in window | Yes | Yes |
| Cohort rank | #216 | #116 |
CPK grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 9.33% a year against CMS's 5.89%. Neither company reduced its regular dividend in any year of the window.
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
1 of 6 covered evidence groups favor CPK. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | Even | 52 vs 55 |
| Fundamentals | CMSon balance | revenue growth -33% vs -42.8%; EPS growth -65.5% vs -57.3%; TTM ROE 11% vs 9.3%; gross margin 69.7% vs 49.9%; operating margin 18.9% vs 27.3% — CMS takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | CMS | Value 52 vs 46 |
| Technicals | CPK | Price vs 50-day 5% vs 4.1%; vs 200-day -6% vs 3.6% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 50 vs 51 |
| Analyst expectations | CMS | Target upside 11.3% vs 2.6% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of CMS and CPK 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 3 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 1 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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 CPK.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 29 – Oct 28CPK lead: Reversed — CMS led by 1 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; CPK now leads by 3.
- Today
- CPK +3
- 52 vs 55
- 7 sessions ago
- CPK +2
- 54 vs 56
- 30 sessions ago
- CMS +1
- 45 vs 44
- 90 sessions ago
- CPK +9
- 43 vs 52
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on Oct 22 when CPK 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.
1 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
Only CMS
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (8.67%)
4 bullish / 0 bearish
Only CPK
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (1.47%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
Both carry 1 more signal that do not separate them: MACD Bullish Crossover.
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 is up while the AIQ Score moved down 2 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +0.83%, AIQ -2 points).
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +0.63%, 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 10 points behind, the largest single contributor to CPK's edge.
- 2CMS's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3CPK'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
CMS leads on balance| Metric | CMS | CPK |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -33% | -42.8% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -65.5% | -57.3% |
| Gross margin | 69.7% | 49.9% |
| Operating margin | 18.9% | 27.3% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 11% | 9.3% |
| Debt to equity | 1.97 | 1.01 |
Performance
CPK leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | CMS | CPK |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 0.1% | 2.9% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 8.1% | 4.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -5.6% | 0.4% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -8.7% | 6.8% |
| Year to date | -2.5% | 7.2% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -8.7% | 1.4% |
Technicals
CPK has the stronger structure| Metric | CMS | CPK |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 63.9 | 67.1 |
| ADX (14) | 33.4 | 21.3 |
| Price vs 50-day | 5% | 4.1% |
| Price vs 200-day | -6% | 3.6% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 19.5% | 23.1% |
Risk
Split| Metric | CMS | CPK |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | -0.17 | -0.24 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.56 | -0.02 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.86 | -0.04 |
| Max drawdown | -21.7% | -14.4% |
| Current drawdown | -14.7% | -3.9% |
| Annualized volatility | 17.6% | 20.1% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.8% | -2.2% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, CMS or CPK?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, CPK is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 55 against CMS's 52. The edge comes from momentum and quality. CMS is not without a case — it holds the better value 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 CMS or CPK the better buy right now?
CPK carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 31, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 1 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 3 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor CPK over CMS?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. CPK leads Momentum by 10 points; CPK leads Quality by 6 points; CMS leads Value by 6 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, CMS or CPK?
Analyst price targets imply +11.3% upside for CMS and +2.6% for CPK, so the Street currently favors CMS. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors CPK. 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, CMS or CPK?
CMS is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. CMS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 6 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, CMS or CPK?
Growth figures are not covered for both names. 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, CMS or CPK?
CPK on the Momentum factor, by 10 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, CMS or CPK?
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 CMS more profitable than CPK?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 69.7% vs 49.9%; operating margin 18.9% vs 27.3%; ttm roe 11% vs 9.3%. CMS leads on two measures and CPK 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 CPK's lead over CMS getting stronger or weaker?
CPK lead: Reversed — CMS led by 1 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; CPK now leads by 3. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-29 and 2026-10-28. The lead has changed hands 2 times in that window, most recently on 2026-10-22, when CPK moved ahead of CMS.
What would change the CMS vs CPK verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: CMS closes the Momentum gap — currently 10 points behind, the largest single contributor to CPK's edge; CMS's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; CPK'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 CMS and CPK?
CMS: 1 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. CPK: 4 bullish / 0 bearish. 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 CMS is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On CPK it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare CMS and CPK 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.