FE vs LNT Stock Comparison
FE currently leads LNT in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 53 vs 49. The clearest difference is value.
What is the main difference between FE and LNT?
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
FirstEnergy Corp. vs Alliant Energy Corporation
FE leads
FE leads by 4 AIQ points, primarily on Value.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support FE, and its current signal state is conflicted.
FirstEnergy Corp.
Alliant Energy Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors FE over LNT, 53 versus 49 as of Oct 31, 2026. FE's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value. FE also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor FE today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 4 points. FE lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 4 points over 30 sessions.
Compare FirstEnergy Corp. and Alliant Energy Corporation across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Performance over time
Total return with distributions reinvested, from daily closes.
Total return comparison
Growth of $10,000, distributions reinvested
Split-adjusted closes; each distribution is reinvested at the close on its ex-dividend date. Taxes and trading costs are not modeled.
Compare FE and LNT 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.
- Value59 vs 43FE +16
- Quality33 vs 36Even
- Momentum69 vs 72Even
- Risk Resilience52 vs 51Even
3 of 6 evidence groups favor FE. FE’s edge is concentrated in value.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-28, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-27.
Largest factor move: Momentum -1, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum -1
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 2 active signals are unchanged.
FE's lead widened by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — FE and LNT both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
FE (FirstEnergy Corp.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value.
LNT (Alliant Energy Corporation): the counter-case, on 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
EvenGrowth figures are not covered for both names.
Value
FEFE on the peer-relative Value factor, by 16 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
FEFE carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
FEFE on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
Where the systematic read and the analyst consensus line up — and where they do not.
| Measure | FE | LNT | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +8.4% | +5.5% | FE has more room |
| Target dispersion | +15.7% | +19.8% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 6 | 7 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | FE | LNT |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 2.44% | 5.96% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $1.560 | $1.520 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $1.760 | $2.030 |
| Years increased | 3 | 5 |
| No cut in window | Yes | Yes |
| Cohort rank | #317 | #212 |
LNT grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 5.96% a year against FE's 2.44%. Neither company reduced its regular dividend in any year of the window.
Yield and payout ratio shown elsewhere on this page are current values, not part of the study window.
Split-adjusted regular dividends per share, 2020–2025, excluding special dividends. Research as of Sep 19, 2026.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
3 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 | FE | 53 vs 49 |
| Fundamentals | LNTon balance | revenue growth -12.5% vs -18%; EPS growth -28.6% vs -24.1%; TTM ROE 8.5% vs 11%; gross margin 53.4% vs 42%; operating margin 18.6% vs 22.1% — LNT takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | FE | Value 59 vs 43 |
| Technicals | LNT | Price vs 50-day 3.2% vs 7.1%; vs 200-day -2.3% vs -1.6% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 52 vs 51 |
| Analyst expectations | FE | Target upside 8.4% vs 5.5% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of FE and LNT 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 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 FE.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 29 – Oct 28FE lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 4 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- FE +4
- 53 vs 49
- 7 sessions ago
- FE +3
- 53 vs 50
- 30 sessions ago
- FE +4
- 44 vs 40
- 90 sessions ago
- FE +3
- 44 vs 41
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on Jul 2 when FE moved ahead of LNT.
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.
1 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only FE
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
1 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
No signal that the other name lacks.
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: Death Cross Active, MACD Bullish Crossover.
FE 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.
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.17%, AIQ 0 points).
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +1.37%, 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.
- 1LNT closes the Value gap — currently 16 points behind, the largest single contributor to FE's edge.
- 2LNT's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3FE's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 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
LNT leads on balance| Metric | FE | LNT |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -12.5% | -18% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -28.6% | -24.1% |
| Gross margin | 53.4% | 42% |
| Operating margin | 18.6% | 22.1% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 8.5% | 11% |
| Debt to equity | 2.24 | 1.61 |
Performance
LNT leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | FE | LNT |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 2% | 1.4% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 7.1% | 9.6% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -4.7% | -2.1% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -5.2% | -3.7% |
| Year to date | 3.6% | 6.7% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -0.5% | 0.6% |
Technicals
LNT has the stronger structure| Metric | FE | LNT |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 66 | 68.3 |
| ADX (14) | 24.3 | 30.5 |
| Price vs 50-day | 3.2% | 7.1% |
| Price vs 200-day | -2.3% | -1.6% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 14% | 18.7% |
Risk
Split| Metric | FE | LNT |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | -0.1 | -0.11 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.13 | -0.03 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.2 | -0.04 |
| Max drawdown | -17.1% | -19% |
| Current drawdown | -10.6% | -11.1% |
| Annualized volatility | 16.3% | 17.1% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.7% | -1.7% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, FE or LNT?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, FE is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 53 against LNT's 49. The edge comes from value. 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 FE or LNT the better buy right now?
FE carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 31, 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 FE over LNT?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. FE leads Value by 16 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, FE or LNT?
Analyst price targets imply +8.4% upside for FE and +5.5% for LNT, so the Street currently favors 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, FE or LNT?
FE is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. FE on the peer-relative Value factor, by 16 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, FE or LNT?
Growth figures are not covered for both names. 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, FE or LNT?
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, FE or LNT?
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 FE more profitable than LNT?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 53.4% vs 42%; operating margin 18.6% vs 22.1%; ttm roe 8.5% vs 11%. FE leads on one measure and LNT 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 FE's lead over LNT getting stronger or weaker?
FE lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 4 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-29 and 2026-10-28. The lead has changed hands 2 times in that window, most recently on 2026-07-02, when FE moved ahead of LNT.
What would change the FE vs LNT verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: LNT closes the Value gap — currently 16 points behind, the largest single contributor to FE's edge; LNT's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; FE's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 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 FE and LNT?
FE: 1 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. LNT: 1 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. 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 FE is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On LNT it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare FE and LNT 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.