ES vs EXC Stock Comparison
Compare ES and EXC across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between ES and EXC?
ES leads the current stock comparison as Eversource Energy, with the clearest separation coming from balanced and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Eversource Energy vs Exelon Corporation
ES leads
ES leads by 2 AIQ points. Wall Street currently favors EXC on target upside.
Fragile: 1 of 6 evidence groups support ES, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Eversource Energy
Exelon Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors ES over EXC, 42 versus 40 as of Sep 11, 2026. ES also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors EXC. 1 of 6 covered evidence groups favor ES today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. ES lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 2 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Eversource Energy and Exelon 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 ES and EXC 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.
- Quality27 vs 24Even
- Risk Resilience56 vs 53Even
- Value63 vs 61Even
- Momentum28 vs 28Even
1 of 6 evidence groups favor ES. Neither name separates cleanly on the covered dimensions.
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 -13
New signals
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum -1
No new signals fired.
ES's lead narrowed by 3 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — ES and EXC both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
ES (Eversource Energy): the stronger current systematic profile.
EXC (Exelon 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
ESES on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
EXCEXC on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
EXCEXC carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
EXCEXC on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors ES, analyst targets favor EXC. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | ES | EXC | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +7.7% | +11.8% | EXC has more room |
| Target dispersion | +5.4% | +29% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 5 | 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
1 of 6 covered evidence groups favor ES. 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 | 42 vs 40 |
| Fundamentals | EXCon balance | revenue growth -35.5% vs -17.6%; EPS growth -91.3% vs -56.7%; TTM ROE 8.9% vs 9.6%; gross margin 35.2% vs 24.5%; operating margin 22.3% vs 20.8% — EXC takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | Even | Value 63 vs 61 |
| Technicals | ES | Price vs 50-day -5.6% vs -5.3%; vs 200-day -1.7% vs -5.1% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 56 vs 53 |
| Analyst expectations | EXC | Target upside 7.7% vs 11.8% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of ES and EXC 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 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 ES.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10ES lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 2 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- ES +2
- 42 vs 40
- 7 sessions ago
- ES +7
- 47 vs 40
- 30 sessions ago
- ES +2
- 45 vs 43
- 90 sessions ago
- ES +5
- 55 vs 50
The lead changed hands once in this window, most recently on Jun 16 when ES moved ahead of EXC.
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 / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (3.40%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
0 bullish / 4 bearish / 1 neutral
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (0.71%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- 52-Week Low Proximity — bearish, risk, long horizon (1.7%)
ES 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 and the AIQ Score both moved down over the latest session (price -0.68%, AIQ -4 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved down over the latest session (price -0.53%, 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.
- 1EXC's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 2ES's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 3A 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
EXC leads on balance| Metric | ES | EXC |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -35.5% | -17.6% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -91.3% | -56.7% |
| Gross margin | 35.2% | 24.5% |
| Operating margin | 22.3% | 20.8% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 8.9% | 9.6% |
| Debt to equity | 1.82 | 1.76 |
Performance
ES leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | ES | EXC |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -2.1% | -1.3% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -3.6% | -4% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -0.3% | -4.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -6.7% | -11.2% |
| Year to date | 2.5% | -0.5% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 9.8% | 0.9% |
Technicals
ES has the stronger structure| Metric | ES | EXC |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 34.5 | 34.2 |
| ADX (14) | 17.2 | 16.1 |
| Price vs 50-day | -5.6% | -5.3% |
| Price vs 200-day | -1.7% | -5.1% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 17.5% | 16.1% |
Risk
Split| Metric | ES | EXC |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.09 | -0.25 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.28 | -0.07 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.31 | -0.11 |
| Max drawdown | -15.1% | -13.7% |
| Current drawdown | -9.5% | -13.7% |
| Annualized volatility | 24.7% | 19.5% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.3% | -2% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, ES or EXC?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, ES is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 42 against EXC's 40. The edge comes from its factor profile. 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 ES or EXC the better buy right now?
ES 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 ES over EXC?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. . Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, ES or EXC?
Analyst price targets imply +7.7% upside for ES and +11.8% for EXC, so the Street currently favors EXC. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors ES. 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, ES or EXC?
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, ES or EXC?
EXC 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, ES or EXC?
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, ES or EXC?
EXC is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. EXC 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 ES more profitable than EXC?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 35.2% vs 24.5%; operating margin 22.3% vs 20.8%; ttm roe 8.9% vs 9.6%. ES leads on two measures and EXC 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 ES's lead over EXC getting stronger or weaker?
ES lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 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 once in that window, most recently on 2026-06-16, when ES moved ahead of EXC.
What would change the ES vs EXC verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: EXC's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; ES's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 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 ES and EXC?
ES: 2 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. EXC: 0 bullish / 4 bearish / 1 neutral. 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 ES is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On EXC it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare ES and EXC 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.