CNP vs CPK Stock Comparison
Compare CNP and CPK across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between CNP and CPK?
CPK leads the current stock comparison as Chesapeake Utilities Corporation, with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
CenterPoint Energy, Inc. vs Chesapeake Utilities Corporation
CPK leads
CPK leads by 2 AIQ points, primarily on Quality, but the lead has narrowed from 16 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors CNP on target upside.
Fragile: 1 of 6 evidence groups support CPK, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
CenterPoint Energy, Inc.
Chesapeake Utilities Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors CPK over CNP, 43 versus 41 as of Sep 11, 2026. CPK's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality, while CNP holds the stronger momentum profile. CPK also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors CNP. 1 of 6 covered evidence groups favor CPK today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. CPK lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 16 to 2 points over 30 sessions.
Compare CenterPoint Energy, Inc. and Chesapeake Utilities 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 CNP 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.
- Quality34 vs 47CPK +13
- Momentum34 vs 30CNP +4
- Value48 vs 46Even
- Risk Resilience52 vs 53Even
1 of 6 evidence groups favor CPK. CPK’s edge is concentrated in quality; CNP 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: Momentum -3
No new signals fired.
No factor moved materially.
New signals
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
CPK's lead widened by 1 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CNP and CPK both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
CPK (Chesapeake Utilities Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality.
CNP (CenterPoint Energy, Inc.): the counter-case, on momentum, 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
CPKCPK on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
CNPCNP on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
CNPCNP on the Momentum factor, by 4 points.
Lower downside
CPKCPK carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
CNPCNP 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 CNP. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | CNP | CPK | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +18.3% | +9.4% | CNP has more room |
| Target dispersion | +21.6% | 0% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 9 | 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
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 | 41 vs 43 |
| Fundamentals | CNPon balance | revenue growth -27.7% vs -42.8%; EPS growth -22.9% vs -57.3%; TTM ROE 9.9% vs 9.3%; gross margin 54.1% vs 49.9%; operating margin 23.2% vs 27.3% — CNP takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | Even | Value 48 vs 46 |
| Technicals | CPK | Price vs 50-day -6% vs -2.1%; vs 200-day -5.6% vs 0.6% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 52 vs 53 |
| Analyst expectations | CNP | Target upside 18.3% vs 9.4% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of CNP 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 2 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 1 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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 CPK.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10CPK lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 16 to 2 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- CPK +2
- 41 vs 43
- 7 sessions ago
- CPK +9
- 41 vs 50
- 30 sessions ago
- CPK +16
- 39 vs 55
- 90 sessions ago
- CNP +3
- 50 vs 47
The lead changed hands 3 times in this window, most recently on Jul 8 when CPK moved ahead of CNP.
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 (0.32%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
2 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (2.95%)
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
CPK 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 -0.03%, AIQ -1 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.18%, 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.
- 1CNP closes the Quality gap — currently 13 points behind, the largest single contributor to CPK's edge.
- 2CNP's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3CPK's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 14 points over 30 sessions, and a further 2-point move would eliminate CPK'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
CNP leads on balance| Metric | CNP | CPK |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -27.7% | -42.8% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -22.9% | -57.3% |
| Gross margin | 54.1% | 49.9% |
| Operating margin | 23.2% | 27.3% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 9.9% | 9.3% |
| Debt to equity | 2.14 | 1.01 |
Performance
CPK leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | CNP | CPK |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -1% | -1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -3.5% | -3.8% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -8.5% | 4.1% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -8.9% | 0.8% |
| Year to date | 2% | 3.9% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 4.8% | 5.1% |
Technicals
CPK has the stronger structure| Metric | CNP | CPK |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 40.5 | 25.4 |
| ADX (14) | 9.4 | 14.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | -6% | -2.1% |
| Price vs 200-day | -5.6% | 0.6% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 18.4% | 15.4% |
Risk
Split| Metric | CNP | CPK |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | -0.13 | -0.21 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.1 | 0.11 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.14 | 0.18 |
| Max drawdown | -13.9% | -14.4% |
| Current drawdown | -13.1% | -6.8% |
| Annualized volatility | 17.2% | 19.9% |
| 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, CNP or CPK?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, CPK is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 43 against CNP's 41. The edge comes from quality. CNP 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 CNP or CPK the better buy right now?
CPK carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 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 2 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor CPK over CNP?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. CPK leads Quality by 13 points; CNP leads Momentum by 4 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, CNP or CPK?
Analyst price targets imply +18.3% upside for CNP and +9.4% for CPK, so the Street currently favors CNP. 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, CNP or CPK?
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, CNP or CPK?
CNP 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, CNP or CPK?
CNP on the Momentum factor, by 4 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, CNP or CPK?
CPK is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. CPK 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 CNP more profitable than CPK?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 54.1% vs 49.9%; operating margin 23.2% vs 27.3%; ttm roe 9.9% vs 9.3%. CNP 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 CNP getting stronger or weaker?
CPK lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 16 to 2 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 3 times in that window, most recently on 2026-07-08, when CPK moved ahead of CNP.
What would change the CNP vs CPK verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: CNP closes the Quality gap — currently 13 points behind, the largest single contributor to CPK's edge; CNP's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; CPK's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 14 points over 30 sessions, and a further 2-point move would eliminate CPK's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about CNP and CPK?
CNP: 2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. CPK: 2 bullish / 1 bearish, 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 CNP is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On CPK it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare CNP 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.