CMS vs D Stock Comparison
CMS currently leads D in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 52 vs 49. The clearest difference is quality, while D has the stronger risk resilience profile.
What is the main difference between CMS and D?
CMS leads the current stock comparison as CMS Energy Corporation, with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
CMS Energy Corporation vs Dominion Energy, Inc.
CMS leads
CMS leads by 3 AIQ points, primarily on Quality.
Fragile: 1 of 6 evidence groups support CMS, and its current signal state is conflicted.
CMS Energy Corporation
Dominion Energy, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors CMS over D, 52 versus 49 as of Oct 31, 2026. CMS's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality, while D holds the stronger risk resilience profile. CMS also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 1 of 6 covered evidence groups favor CMS today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 3 points. CMS lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 3 points over 30 sessions.
Compare CMS Energy Corporation and Dominion Energy, Inc. 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 D 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.
- Quality41 vs 33CMS +8
- Risk Resilience50 vs 54D +4
- Value52 vs 49Even
- Momentum68 vs 67Even
1 of 6 evidence groups favor CMS. CMS’s edge is concentrated in quality; D keeps a meaningful risk resilience 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 -13
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
CMS's lead widened by 2 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CMS and D both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
CMS (CMS Energy Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality.
D (Dominion Energy, Inc.): 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
CMSCMS on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
DD on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
DD on Risk Resilience, by 4 points.
Analyst upside
CMSCMS 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 | CMS | D | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +11.3% | +4.8% | CMS has more room |
| Target dispersion | +21.8% | +25.8% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 11 | 9 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | CMS | D |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 5.89% | -5.00% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $1.630 | $3.450 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $2.170 | $2.670 |
| Years increased | 5 | 1 |
| No cut in window | Yes | No (2) |
| Cohort rank | #216 | not ranked |
CMS grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 5.89% a year against D's -5.00%. CMS never reduced its regular dividend in the window; D did in 2 years.
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 CMS. 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 49 |
| Fundamentals | Don balance | revenue growth -33% vs -11.4%; EPS growth -65.5% vs -46.4%; TTM ROE 11% vs 8.9%; gross margin 69.7% vs 49.3%; operating margin 18.9% vs 25.1% — D takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | Even | Value 52 vs 49 |
| Technicals | D | Price vs 50-day 5% vs 4.4%; vs 200-day -6% vs -0.7% |
| Risk Resilience | D | Risk Resilience 50 vs 54 |
| Analyst expectations | CMS | Target upside 11.3% vs 4.8% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of CMS and D 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 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 CMS.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 29 – Oct 28CMS lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 3 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- CMS +3
- 52 vs 49
- 7 sessions ago
- CMS +1
- 54 vs 53
- 30 sessions ago
- CMS +5
- 45 vs 40
- 90 sessions ago
- D +3
- 43 vs 46
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on Aug 10 when D 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
No signal that the other name lacks.
1 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only D
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: Death Cross Active, MACD Bullish Crossover.
CMS 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 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 4 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +2.3%, 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.
- 1D closes the Quality gap — currently 8 points behind, the largest single contributor to CMS's edge.
- 2D's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3CMS's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 1 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
D leads on balance| Metric | CMS | D |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -33% | -11.4% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -65.5% | -46.4% |
| Gross margin | 69.7% | 49.3% |
| Operating margin | 18.9% | 25.1% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 11% | 8.9% |
| Debt to equity | 1.97 | 1.85 |
Performance
D leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | CMS | D |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 0.1% | 3.1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 8.1% | 6.2% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -5.6% | -7.8% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -8.7% | 2.8% |
| Year to date | -2.5% | 9.7% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -8.7% | 5.3% |
Technicals
D has the stronger structure| Metric | CMS | D |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 63.9 | 63.3 |
| ADX (14) | 33.4 | 28.4 |
| Price vs 50-day | 5% | 4.4% |
| Price vs 200-day | -6% | -0.7% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 19.5% | 23% |
Risk
D is the more resilient| Metric | CMS | D |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | -0.17 | -0.12 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.56 | 0.28 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.86 | 0.48 |
| Max drawdown | -21.7% | -15.9% |
| Current drawdown | -14.7% | -10.3% |
| Annualized volatility | 17.6% | 21% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.8% | -2% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, CMS or D?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, CMS is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 52 against D's 49. The edge comes from quality. D 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 CMS or D the better buy right now?
CMS 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 CMS over D?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. CMS leads Quality by 8 points; D leads Risk Resilience by 4 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, CMS or D?
Analyst price targets imply +11.3% upside for CMS and +4.8% for D, so the Street currently favors CMS. 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, CMS or D?
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, CMS or D?
D 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, CMS or D?
The two are level on Momentum. 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 D?
D is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. D on Risk Resilience, by 4 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 CMS more profitable than D?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 69.7% vs 49.3%; operating margin 18.9% vs 25.1%; ttm roe 11% vs 8.9%. CMS leads on two measures and D 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 CMS's lead over D getting stronger or weaker?
CMS lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 3 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 2 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-10, when D moved ahead of CMS.
What would change the CMS vs D verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: D closes the Quality gap — currently 8 points behind, the largest single contributor to CMS's edge; d's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; CMS's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 1 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 CMS and D?
CMS: 1 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. D: 1 bullish / 1 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 CMS is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On D it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare CMS and D 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.