BEP vs SPWR Stock Comparison
SPWR currently leads BEP in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 54 vs 41. The clearest difference is quality, while BEP has the stronger risk resilience profile.
What is the main difference between BEP and SPWR?
SPWR leads the current stock comparison as SunPower Inc., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Brookfield Renewable Partners L.P. vs SunPower Inc.
SPWR leads
SPWR leads by 13 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Value.
Competitive: 3 of 6 evidence groups support SPWR, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Brookfield Renewable Partners L.P.
SunPower Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors SPWR over BEP, 54 versus 41 as of Oct 31, 2026. SPWR's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and value, while BEP holds the stronger risk resilience profile. SPWR also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor SPWR today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. SPWR lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 13 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Brookfield Renewable Partners L.P. and SunPower Inc. 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 BEP and SPWR 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.
- Quality14 vs 78SPWR +64
- Risk Resilience55 vs 30BEP +25
- Momentum40 vs 25BEP +15
- Value61 vs 65SPWR +4
3 of 6 evidence groups favor SPWR. SPWR’s edge is concentrated in quality and value; BEP keeps a meaningful risk resilience edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-30, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-29.
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
SPWR's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — BEP and SPWR both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
SPWR (SunPower Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and value.
BEP (Brookfield Renewable Partners L.P.): the counter-case, on risk resilience, momentum, fundamentals.
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
SPWRSPWR on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
BEPBEP on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
SPWRSPWR on the peer-relative Value factor, by 4 points.
Momentum
BEPBEP on the Momentum factor, by 15 points.
Lower downside
BEPBEP on Risk Resilience, by 25 points.
Analyst upside
SPWRSPWR 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 | BEP | SPWR | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +33.1% | +2508.7% | SPWR has more room |
| Target dispersion | +31.5% | 0% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 6 | 1 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor SPWR. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | SPWR | 41 vs 54 |
| Fundamentals | BEPon balance | revenue growth 9.4% vs -24.6%; EPS growth 10% vs -80.9%; TTM ROE 2.6% vs 26.1%; gross margin 24.4% vs 48.8%; operating margin 10.6% vs -24.5% — BEP takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | SPWR | Value 61 vs 65 |
| Technicals | BEP | Price vs 50-day -4% vs -20.8%; vs 200-day -9.7% vs -72.1% |
| Risk Resilience | BEP | Risk Resilience 55 vs 30 |
| Analyst expectations | SPWR | Target upside 33.1% vs 2508.7% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of BEP and SPWR and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
- The AIQ gap is wide at 13 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 SPWR.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jul 1 – Oct 30SPWR lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 13 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- SPWR +13
- 41 vs 54
- 7 sessions ago
- SPWR +12
- 42 vs 54
- 30 sessions ago
- SPWR +14
- 41 vs 55
- 90 sessions ago
- SPWR +25
- 39 vs 64
The lead has not changed hands in this window.
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 / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only BEP
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
1 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only SPWR
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (9.49%)
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: Death Cross Active, Downtrend Structure Active.
SPWR 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 -1.34%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -5.31%, 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.
- 1BEP closes the Quality gap — currently 64 points behind, the largest single contributor to SPWR's edge.
- 2BEP's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3SPWR's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 3 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
BEP leads on balance| Metric | BEP | SPWR |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 9.4% | -24.6% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 10% | -80.9% |
| Gross margin | 24.4% | 48.8% |
| Operating margin | 10.6% | -24.5% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 2.6% | 26.1% |
| Debt to equity | 8.43 | -5.03 |
Performance
BEP leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | BEP | SPWR |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -0.7% | 2.4% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 2.9% | -22.4% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -11.3% | -25.3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -9.7% | -71.3% |
| Year to date | 7.4% | -84.8% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -1.1% | -88.7% |
Technicals
BEP has the stronger structure| Metric | BEP | SPWR |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 47.2 | 29.8 |
| ADX (14) | 14.4 | 17.9 |
| Price vs 50-day | -4% | -20.8% |
| Price vs 200-day | -9.7% | -72.1% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 28.4% | 55% |
Risk
BEP is the more resilient| Metric | BEP | SPWR |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.76 | 2.5 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.3 | -1.51 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.47 | -2.32 |
| Max drawdown | -25.3% | -89.3% |
| Current drawdown | -22.4% | -88.3% |
| Annualized volatility | 27.6% | 105.7% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.7% | -9.1% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, BEP or SPWR?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, SPWR is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 54 against BEP's 41. The edge comes from quality and value. BEP is not without a case — it holds the better risk resilience 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 BEP or SPWR the better buy right now?
SPWR carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 31, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Competitive rating means the two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
Why does the AIQ Score favor SPWR over BEP?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. SPWR leads Quality by 64 points; BEP leads Risk Resilience by 25 points; BEP leads Momentum by 15 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, BEP or SPWR?
Analyst price targets imply +33.1% upside for BEP and +2508.7% for SPWR, so the Street currently favors SPWR. 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, BEP or SPWR?
SPWR is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. SPWR on the peer-relative Value factor, by 4 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, BEP or SPWR?
BEP 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, BEP or SPWR?
BEP on the Momentum factor, by 15 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, BEP or SPWR?
BEP is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. BEP on Risk Resilience, by 25 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 BEP more profitable than SPWR?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 24.4% vs 48.8%; operating margin 10.6% vs -24.5%; ttm roe 2.6% vs 26.1%. BEP leads on one measure and SPWR 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 SPWR's lead over BEP getting stronger or weaker?
SPWR lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 13 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-07-01 and 2026-10-30. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the BEP vs SPWR verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: BEP closes the Quality gap — currently 64 points behind, the largest single contributor to SPWR's edge; BEP's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; SPWR's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 3 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 BEP and SPWR?
BEP: 1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. SPWR: 1 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral, 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 BEP is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On SPWR it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare BEP and SPWR 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.