EVRG vs FE Stock Comparison
Compare EVRG and FE across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between EVRG and FE?
FE leads the current stock comparison as FirstEnergy Corp., with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Evergy, Inc. vs FirstEnergy Corp.
FE leads
FE leads by 2 AIQ points, primarily on Value, having only recently taken the lead back from EVRG.
Fragile: 1 of 6 evidence groups support FE, the lead recently changed hands, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Evergy, Inc.
FirstEnergy Corp.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors FE over EVRG, 44 versus 42 as of Sep 11, 2026. FE's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value, while EVRG holds the stronger momentum profile. FE also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 1 of 6 covered evidence groups favor FE today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. FE lead: Reversed — EVRG led by 3 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; FE now leads by 2.
Compare Evergy, Inc. and FirstEnergy Corp. 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 EVRG and FE 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.
- Value48 vs 59FE +11
- Momentum41 vs 34EVRG +7
- Quality33 vs 33Even
- Risk Resilience51 vs 51Even
1 of 6 evidence groups favor FE. FE’s edge is concentrated in value; EVRG 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 +2
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum +1
No new signals fired.
FE's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — EVRG and FE both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
FE (FirstEnergy Corp.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value.
EVRG (Evergy, Inc.): the counter-case, on momentum, fundamentals, technicals.
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
FEFE on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
EVRGEVRG on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
FEFE on the peer-relative Value factor, by 11 points.
Momentum
EVRGEVRG on the Momentum factor, by 7 points.
Lower downside
FEFE carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
EvenAnalyst targets are level or not covered for both names.
AIQ vs Wall Street
Where the systematic read and the analyst consensus line up — and where they do not.
| Measure | EVRG | FE | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +14.7% | +15.3% | Level |
| Target dispersion | +12.8% | +7.5% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 4 | 5 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
1 of 6 covered evidence groups favor FE. 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 44 |
| Fundamentals | EVRGon balance | revenue growth 3.9% vs -12.5%; EPS growth 40.9% vs -28.6%; TTM ROE 9.1% vs 8.5%; gross margin 40.1% vs 53.4%; operating margin 25.9% vs 18.6% — EVRG takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | FE | Value 48 vs 59 |
| Technicals | EVRG | Price vs 50-day -2.7% vs -3.2%; vs 200-day 0.8% vs -2.7% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 51 vs 51 |
| Analyst expectations | Even | Target upside 14.7% vs 15.3% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of EVRG and FE 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 already changed hands inside the comparison window. (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 FE.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10FE lead: Reversed — EVRG led by 3 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; FE now leads by 2.
- Today
- FE +2
- 42 vs 44
- 7 sessions ago
- FE +3
- 41 vs 44
- 30 sessions ago
- EVRG +3
- 45 vs 42
- 90 sessions ago
- Level
- 51 vs 51
The lead changed hands 5 times in this window, most recently on Aug 14 when EVRG moved ahead of FE.
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
2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (0.25%)
- 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 +0.32%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -0.26%, 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.
- 1EVRG closes the Value gap — currently 11 points behind, the largest single contributor to FE's edge.
- 2EVRG's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3FE'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
EVRG leads on balance| Metric | EVRG | FE |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 3.9% | -12.5% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 40.9% | -28.6% |
| Gross margin | 40.1% | 53.4% |
| Operating margin | 25.9% | 18.6% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 9.1% | 8.5% |
| Debt to equity | 1.61 | 2.24 |
Performance
EVRG leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | EVRG | FE |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 0.7% | -0.1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -2.4% | -1.6% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -1.8% | -0.4% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 0.4% | -8.7% |
| Year to date | 12.2% | 3.3% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 15% | 6.8% |
Technicals
EVRG has the stronger structure| Metric | EVRG | FE |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 41.1 | 40.5 |
| ADX (14) | 14.9 | 15.5 |
| Price vs 50-day | -2.7% | -3.2% |
| Price vs 200-day | 0.8% | -2.7% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 15.2% | 14.6% |
Risk
Split| Metric | EVRG | FE |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | -0.04 | -0.09 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.67 | 0.24 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.11 | 0.36 |
| Max drawdown | -8.5% | -15.6% |
| Current drawdown | -7.7% | -10.9% |
| Annualized volatility | 16.3% | 16.1% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.5% | -1.6% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, EVRG or FE?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, FE is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 44 against EVRG's 42. The edge comes from value. EVRG 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 EVRG or FE the better buy right now?
FE 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 FE over EVRG?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. FE leads Value by 11 points; EVRG leads Momentum by 7 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, EVRG or FE?
Analyst price targets imply +14.7% upside for EVRG and +15.3% for FE. The model and the Street agree here, which is a broader base of evidence than either alone. Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions, and dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Which is better value, EVRG or FE?
FE is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. FE on the peer-relative Value factor, by 11 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, EVRG or FE?
EVRG 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, EVRG or FE?
EVRG 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, EVRG or FE?
FE is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. FE 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 EVRG more profitable than FE?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 40.1% vs 53.4%; operating margin 25.9% vs 18.6%; ttm roe 9.1% vs 8.5%. EVRG leads on two measures and FE 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 FE's lead over EVRG getting stronger or weaker?
FE lead: Reversed — EVRG led by 3 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; FE now leads by 2. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has changed hands 5 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-14, when EVRG moved ahead of FE.
What would change the EVRG vs FE verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: EVRG closes the Value gap — currently 11 points behind, the largest single contributor to FE's edge; EVRG's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; FE'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 EVRG and FE?
EVRG: 2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. FE: 2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. The most decision-relevant rule on EVRG is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On FE it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare EVRG and FE 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.