DUK vs ED Stock Comparison
Compare DUK and ED across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between DUK and ED?
ED leads the current stock comparison as Consolidated Edison, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Duke Energy Corporation vs Consolidated Edison, Inc.
ED leads
ED leads by 4 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Momentum. Wall Street currently favors DUK on target upside.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support ED, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Duke Energy Corporation
Consolidated Edison, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors ED over DUK, 49 versus 45 as of Sep 11, 2026. ED's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and momentum. ED also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors DUK. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor ED today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 4 points. ED lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 4 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Duke Energy Corporation and Consolidated Edison, 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 DUK and ED 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.
- Quality45 vs 52ED +7
- Momentum31 vs 37ED +6
- Risk Resilience52 vs 56ED +4
- Value53 vs 54Even
3 of 6 evidence groups favor ED. ED’s edge is concentrated in quality and momentum.
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 -1
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum -10
No new signals fired.
ED's lead narrowed by 3 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — DUK and ED both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
ED (Consolidated Edison, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and momentum.
DUK (Duke 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
EDED on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
DUKDUK on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
EDED on the Momentum factor, by 6 points.
Lower downside
EDED on Risk Resilience, by 4 points.
Analyst upside
DUKDUK on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors ED, analyst targets favor DUK. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | DUK | ED | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +14.6% | -1.4% | DUK has more room |
| Target dispersion | +7.3% | +21% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 9 | 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 ED. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | ED | 45 vs 49 |
| Fundamentals | DUKon balance | revenue growth -17.3% vs -20.1%; EPS growth -29.9% vs -67.5%; TTM ROE 9.9% vs 8.9%; gross margin 68.2% vs 76%; operating margin 27.6% vs 18% — DUK takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | Even | Value 53 vs 54 |
| Technicals | ED | Price vs 50-day -3.9% vs -2.8%; vs 200-day -3.7% vs -0.5% |
| Risk Resilience | ED | Risk Resilience 52 vs 56 |
| Analyst expectations | DUK | Target upside 14.6% vs -1.4% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of DUK and ED 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 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 ED.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10ED lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 4 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- ED +4
- 45 vs 49
- 7 sessions ago
- ED +7
- 44 vs 51
- 30 sessions ago
- ED +6
- 45 vs 51
- 90 sessions ago
- ED +5
- 54 vs 59
The lead has not changed hands in this window.
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 (0.05%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (1.97%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
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 +0.04%, AIQ 0 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved down over the latest session (price -0.25%, AIQ -3 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.
- 1DUK closes the Quality gap — currently 7 points behind, the largest single contributor to ED's edge.
- 2DUK's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3ED'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
DUK leads on balance| Metric | DUK | ED |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -17.3% | -20.1% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -29.9% | -67.5% |
| Gross margin | 68.2% | 76% |
| Operating margin | 27.6% | 18% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 9.9% | 8.9% |
| Debt to equity | 1.67 | 1.1 |
Performance
ED leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | DUK | ED |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -1% | -0.9% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -3.3% | -1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -4.5% | -0.8% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -8.2% | -4.5% |
| Year to date | 1.8% | 7.5% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -0.7% | 10.4% |
Technicals
ED has the stronger structure| Metric | DUK | ED |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 37.4 | 44.1 |
| ADX (14) | 18.8 | 10.4 |
| Price vs 50-day | -3.9% | -2.8% |
| Price vs 200-day | -3.7% | -0.5% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 13.8% | 14.2% |
Risk
ED is the more resilient| Metric | DUK | ED |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | -0.3 | -0.49 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.22 | 0.42 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.34 | 0.71 |
| Max drawdown | -11.7% | -10.4% |
| Current drawdown | -10.6% | -7.6% |
| Annualized volatility | 16.1% | 17.3% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.7% | -1.8% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, DUK or ED?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, ED is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 49 against DUK's 45. The edge comes from quality and momentum. 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 DUK or ED the better buy right now?
ED 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 ED over DUK?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. ED leads Quality by 7 points; ED leads Momentum by 6 points; ED leads Risk Resilience by 4 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, DUK or ED?
Analyst price targets imply +14.6% upside for DUK and -1.4% for ED, so the Street currently favors DUK. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors ED. 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, DUK or ED?
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, DUK or ED?
DUK 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, DUK or ED?
ED on the Momentum factor, by 6 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, DUK or ED?
ED is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. ED 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 DUK more profitable than ED?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 68.2% vs 76%; operating margin 27.6% vs 18%; ttm roe 9.9% vs 8.9%. DUK leads on two measures and ED 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 ED's lead over DUK getting stronger or weaker?
ED lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 4 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the DUK vs ED verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: DUK closes the Quality gap — currently 7 points behind, the largest single contributor to ED's edge; DUK's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; ED'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 DUK and ED?
DUK: 2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. ED: 2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. The most decision-relevant rule on DUK is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On ED it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare DUK and ED 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.