HE vs LNT Stock Comparison
LNT currently leads HE in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 49 vs 43. The clearest difference is momentum, while HE has the stronger value profile.
What is the main difference between HE and LNT?
LNT leads the current stock comparison as Alliant Energy Corporation, with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Hawaiian Electric Industries, Inc. vs Alliant Energy Corporation
LNT leads
LNT leads by 6 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Quality, having only recently taken the lead back from HE. Wall Street currently favors HE on target upside.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support LNT, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Hawaiian Electric Industries, Inc.
Alliant Energy Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors LNT over HE, 49 versus 43 as of Oct 31, 2026. LNT's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and quality, while HE holds the stronger value profile. LNT also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors HE. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor LNT today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. LNT lead: Reversed — HE led by 1 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; LNT now leads by 6.
Compare Hawaiian Electric Industries, Inc. 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 HE 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.
- Momentum33 vs 72LNT +39
- Value66 vs 43HE +23
- Quality25 vs 36LNT +11
- Risk Resilience47 vs 51LNT +4
3 of 6 evidence groups favor LNT. LNT’s edge is concentrated in momentum and quality; HE keeps a meaningful value edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-28, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-27.
Largest factor move: Risk Resilience +1
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum -1
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 2 active signals are unchanged.
LNT's lead narrowed by 2 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — HE and LNT both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
LNT (Alliant Energy Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and quality.
HE (Hawaiian Electric Industries, Inc.): the counter-case, on value, fundamentals, valuation — but at materially higher volatility, 29.1% against 18.7%.
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
LNTLNT on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
HEHE on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
HEHE on the peer-relative Value factor, by 23 points.
Momentum
LNTLNT on the Momentum factor, by 39 points.
Lower downside
LNTLNT on Risk Resilience, by 4 points.
Analyst upside
HEHE on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors LNT, analyst targets favor HE. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | HE | LNT | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +11.5% | +5.5% | HE has more room |
| Target dispersion | +51.5% | +19.8% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 2 | 7 | 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
3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor LNT. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | LNT | 43 vs 49 |
| Fundamentals | HEon balance | revenue growth 25.9% vs -18%; EPS growth 294.4% vs -24.1%; TTM ROE 13.7% vs 11%; gross margin 11.5% vs 42%; operating margin 11.5% vs 22.1% — HE takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | HE | Value 66 vs 43 |
| Technicals | LNT | Price vs 50-day -10.6% vs 7.1%; vs 200-day -36.4% vs -1.6% |
| Risk Resilience | LNT | Risk Resilience 47 vs 51 |
| Analyst expectations | HE | Target upside 11.5% vs 5.5% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of HE 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 moderate at 6 points.
- Only 3 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 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 LNT.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 29 – Oct 28LNT lead: Reversed — HE led by 1 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; LNT now leads by 6.
- Today
- LNT +6
- 43 vs 49
- 7 sessions ago
- LNT +7
- 43 vs 50
- 30 sessions ago
- HE +1
- 41 vs 40
- 90 sessions ago
- Level
- 41 vs 41
The lead changed hands once in this window, most recently on Oct 8 when LNT moved ahead of HE.
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 / 3 bearish, conflicted
Only HE
- 52-Week Low Proximity — bearish, risk, long horizon (0.4%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long 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.
LNT 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 up over the latest session (price +1.75%, AIQ +1 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.
- 1HE closes the Momentum gap — currently 39 points behind, the largest single contributor to LNT's edge.
- 2HE's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3LNT'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
HE leads on balance| Metric | HE | LNT |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 25.9% | -18% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 294.4% | -24.1% |
| Gross margin | 11.5% | 42% |
| Operating margin | 11.5% | 22.1% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 13.7% | 11% |
| Debt to equity | 1.6 | 1.61 |
Performance
LNT leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | HE | LNT |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -3.8% | 1.4% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -6.2% | 9.6% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -36.4% | -2.1% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -43.8% | -3.7% |
| Year to date | -31.6% | 6.7% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -29.3% | 0.6% |
Technicals
LNT has the stronger structure| Metric | HE | LNT |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 38.9 | 68.3 |
| ADX (14) | 62.1 | 30.5 |
| Price vs 50-day | -10.6% | 7.1% |
| Price vs 200-day | -36.4% | -1.6% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 29.1% | 18.7% |
Risk
LNT is the more resilient| Metric | HE | LNT |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.34 | -0.11 |
| Sharpe ratio | -1.07 | -0.03 |
| Sortino ratio | -1.67 | -0.04 |
| Max drawdown | -51.9% | -19% |
| Current drawdown | -50.9% | -11.1% |
| Annualized volatility | 32.2% | 17.1% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.3% | -1.7% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, HE or LNT?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, LNT is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 49 against HE's 43. The edge comes from momentum and quality. HE is not without a case — it holds the better value 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 HE or LNT the better buy right now?
LNT 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: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor LNT over HE?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. LNT leads Momentum by 39 points; HE leads Value by 23 points; LNT leads Quality by 11 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, HE or LNT?
Analyst price targets imply +11.5% upside for HE and +5.5% for LNT, so the Street currently favors HE. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors LNT. 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, HE or LNT?
HE is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. HE on the peer-relative Value factor, by 23 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, HE or LNT?
HE 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, HE or LNT?
LNT on the Momentum factor, by 39 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, HE or LNT?
LNT is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. LNT on Risk Resilience, by 4 points. Risk Resilience is a weighted factor in the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is HE more profitable than LNT?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 11.5% vs 42%; operating margin 11.5% vs 22.1%; ttm roe 13.7% vs 11%. HE 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 LNT's lead over HE getting stronger or weaker?
LNT lead: Reversed — HE led by 1 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; LNT now leads by 6. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-29 and 2026-10-28. The lead has changed hands once in that window, most recently on 2026-10-08, when LNT moved ahead of HE.
What would change the HE vs LNT verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: HE closes the Momentum gap — currently 39 points behind, the largest single contributor to LNT's edge; HE's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; LNT'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 HE and LNT?
HE: 1 bullish / 3 bearish, 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 HE is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On LNT it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare HE 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.