ED vs ETR Stock Comparison
Compare ED and ETR across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between ED and ETR?
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
Consolidated Edison, Inc. vs Entergy Corporation
ED leads
ED leads by 10 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Value. Wall Street currently favors ETR on target upside.
Competitive: 2 of 6 evidence groups support ED, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Consolidated Edison, Inc.
Entergy Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors ED over ETR, 49 versus 39 as of Sep 11, 2026. ED's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and value, while ETR holds the stronger momentum profile. ED also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors ETR. 2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor ED today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: only 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. ED lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 10 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Consolidated Edison, Inc. and Entergy 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 ED and ETR 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.
- Quality52 vs 30ED +22
- Value54 vs 37ED +17
- Momentum37 vs 44ETR +7
- Risk Resilience56 vs 54Even
2 of 6 evidence groups favor ED. ED’s edge is concentrated in quality and value; ETR 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 -10
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum -3
No new signals fired.
ED's lead narrowed by 2 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — ED and ETR both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
ED (Consolidated Edison, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and value.
ETR (Entergy Corporation): 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
EDED on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
ETRETR on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EDED on the peer-relative Value factor, by 17 points.
Momentum
ETRETR on the Momentum factor, by 7 points.
Lower downside
EDED carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
ETRETR 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 ETR. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | ED | ETR | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -1.4% | +15.1% | ETR has more room |
| Target dispersion | +21% | +33.8% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 8 | 11 | 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
2 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 | 49 vs 39 |
| Fundamentals | ETRon balance | revenue growth -20.1% vs 10.5%; EPS growth -67.5% vs 25%; TTM ROE 8.9% vs 10.4%; gross margin 76% vs 38.9%; operating margin 18% vs 22.2% — ETR takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | ED | Value 54 vs 37 |
| Technicals | Even | Price vs 50-day -2.8% vs -4.1%; vs 200-day -0.5% vs 0.1% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 56 vs 54 |
| Analyst expectations | ETR | Target upside -1.4% vs 15.1% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of ED and ETR and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
- The AIQ gap is moderate at 10 points.
- Only 2 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 10 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- ED +10
- 49 vs 39
- 7 sessions ago
- ED +12
- 51 vs 39
- 30 sessions ago
- ED +11
- 51 vs 40
- 90 sessions ago
- ED +13
- 59 vs 46
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 (1.97%)
- 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 (3.87%)
- 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.
Price and the AIQ Score both moved down over the latest session (price -0.25%, AIQ -3 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved down over the latest session (price -0.38%, 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.
- 1ETR closes the Quality gap — currently 22 points behind, the largest single contributor to ED's edge.
- 2ETR'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
ETR leads on balance| Metric | ED | ETR |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -20.1% | 10.5% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -67.5% | 25% |
| Gross margin | 76% | 38.9% |
| Operating margin | 18% | 22.2% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 8.9% | 10.4% |
| Debt to equity | 1.1 | 1.88 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | ED | ETR |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -0.9% | -1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -1% | -2% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -0.8% | -4.3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -4.5% | 1.8% |
| Year to date | 7.5% | 14.4% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 10.4% | 21.8% |
Technicals
Split| Metric | ED | ETR |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 44.1 | 44.2 |
| ADX (14) | 10.4 | 13.1 |
| Price vs 50-day | -2.8% | -4.1% |
| Price vs 200-day | -0.5% | 0.1% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 14.2% | 15.7% |
Risk
Split| Metric | ED | ETR |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | -0.49 | 0.19 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.42 | 0.86 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.71 | 1.26 |
| Max drawdown | -10.4% | -11.3% |
| Current drawdown | -7.6% | -10.3% |
| Annualized volatility | 17.3% | 20.6% |
| 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, ED or ETR?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, ED is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 49 against ETR's 39. The edge comes from quality and value. ETR 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 ED or ETR the better buy right now?
ED carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Competitive rating means the two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
Why does the AIQ Score favor ED over ETR?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. ED leads Quality by 22 points; ED leads Value by 17 points; ETR leads Momentum by 7 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, ED or ETR?
Analyst price targets imply -1.4% upside for ED and +15.1% for ETR, so the Street currently favors ETR. 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, ED or ETR?
ED is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. ED on the peer-relative Value factor, by 17 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, ED or ETR?
ETR 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, ED or ETR?
ETR on the Momentum factor, by 7 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, ED or ETR?
ED is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. ED 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 ED more profitable than ETR?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 76% vs 38.9%; operating margin 18% vs 22.2%; ttm roe 8.9% vs 10.4%. ED leads on one measure and ETR 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 ED's lead over ETR getting stronger or weaker?
ED lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 10 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 ED vs ETR verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: ETR closes the Quality gap — currently 22 points behind, the largest single contributor to ED's edge; ETR'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 ED and ETR?
ED: 2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. ETR: 2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. The most decision-relevant rule on ED is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On ETR it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare ED and ETR 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.