ETR vs EXC Stock Comparison
Compare ETR and EXC across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between ETR and EXC?
EXC leads the current stock comparison as Exelon Corporation, with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Entergy Corporation vs Exelon Corporation
EXC leads
EXC leads by 1 AIQ points, primarily on Value. Wall Street currently favors ETR on target upside.
Fragile: 1 of 6 evidence groups support EXC.
Entergy Corporation
Exelon Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors EXC over ETR, 40 versus 39 as of Sep 11, 2026. EXC's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value, while ETR holds the stronger momentum profile. EXC also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors ETR. 1 of 6 covered evidence groups favor EXC today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. EXC lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 1 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Entergy Corporation 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 ETR 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.
- Value37 vs 61EXC +24
- Momentum44 vs 28ETR +16
- Quality30 vs 24ETR +6
- Risk Resilience54 vs 53Even
1 of 6 evidence groups favor EXC. EXC’s edge is concentrated in 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 -3
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum -1
No new signals fired.
EXC's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — ETR and EXC both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
EXC (Exelon Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value.
ETR (Entergy Corporation): the counter-case, on momentum, quality, fundamentals.
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
EXCEXC on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
ETRETR on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EXCEXC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 24 points.
Momentum
ETRETR on the Momentum factor, by 16 points.
Lower downside
EvenDownside measures are level or not covered.
Analyst upside
ETRETR on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors EXC, analyst targets favor ETR. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | ETR | EXC | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +15.1% | +11.8% | ETR has more room |
| Target dispersion | +33.8% | +29% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 11 | 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 EXC. 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 | 39 vs 40 |
| Fundamentals | ETR | revenue growth 10.5% vs -17.6%; EPS growth 25% vs -56.7%; TTM ROE 10.4% vs 9.6%; gross margin 38.9% vs 24.5%; operating margin 22.2% vs 20.8% |
| Valuation | EXC | Value 37 vs 61 |
| Technicals | ETR | Price vs 50-day -4.1% vs -5.3%; vs 200-day 0.1% vs -5.1% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 54 vs 53 |
| Analyst expectations | ETR | Target upside 15.1% vs 11.8% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of ETR 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 1 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)
- Signal direction runs against the verdict: the leader is net-bearish while the laggard is net-bullish. (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 EXC.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10EXC lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 1 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- EXC +1
- 39 vs 40
- 7 sessions ago
- EXC +1
- 39 vs 40
- 30 sessions ago
- EXC +3
- 40 vs 43
- 90 sessions ago
- EXC +4
- 46 vs 50
The lead changed hands 3 times in this window, most recently on Jul 16 when EXC moved ahead of ETR.
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 (3.87%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, 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%)
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 -0.38%, AIQ -1 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.
- 1ETR closes the Value gap — currently 24 points behind, the largest single contributor to EXC's edge.
- 2ETR's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3EXC starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals.
- 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 | ETR | EXC |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 10.5% | -17.6% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 25% | -56.7% |
| Gross margin | 38.9% | 24.5% |
| Operating margin | 22.2% | 20.8% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 10.4% | 9.6% |
| Debt to equity | 1.88 | 1.76 |
Performance
ETR leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | ETR | EXC |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -1% | -1.3% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -2% | -4% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -4.3% | -4.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 1.8% | -11.2% |
| Year to date | 14.4% | -0.5% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 21.8% | 0.9% |
Technicals
ETR has the stronger structure| Metric | ETR | EXC |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 44.2 | 34.2 |
| ADX (14) | 13.1 | 16.1 |
| Price vs 50-day | -4.1% | -5.3% |
| Price vs 200-day | 0.1% | -5.1% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 15.7% | 16.1% |
Risk
Split| Metric | ETR | EXC |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.19 | -0.25 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.86 | -0.07 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.26 | -0.11 |
| Max drawdown | -11.3% | -13.7% |
| Current drawdown | -10.3% | -13.7% |
| Annualized volatility | 20.6% | 19.5% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2% | -2% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, ETR or EXC?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, EXC is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 40 against ETR's 39. The edge comes from 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 ETR or EXC the better buy right now?
EXC 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 1 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor EXC over ETR?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. EXC leads Value by 24 points; ETR leads Momentum by 16 points; ETR leads Quality by 6 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, ETR or EXC?
Analyst price targets imply +15.1% upside for ETR and +11.8% for EXC, so the Street currently favors ETR. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors EXC. 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, ETR or EXC?
EXC is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. EXC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 24 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, ETR or EXC?
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, ETR or EXC?
ETR on the Momentum factor, by 16 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, ETR or EXC?
The two are close on downside measures. Downside measures are level or not covered. Risk Resilience is a weighted factor in the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is ETR more profitable than EXC?
ETR leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 38.9% vs 24.5%; operating margin 22.2% vs 20.8%; ttm roe 10.4% vs 9.6%.
Is EXC's lead over ETR getting stronger or weaker?
EXC lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 1 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 2026-07-16, when EXC moved ahead of ETR.
What would change the ETR vs EXC verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: ETR closes the Value gap — currently 24 points behind, the largest single contributor to EXC's edge; ETR's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; EXC starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals; 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 ETR and EXC?
ETR: 2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. EXC: 0 bullish / 4 bearish / 1 neutral. The most decision-relevant rule on ETR is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On EXC it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare ETR 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.