Constellation Energy vs Southern
CEG and SO side by side, both in electric services. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How CEG and SO compare
Southern is the larger company, worth 1.2 times as much as Constellation Energy ($108B against $93.0B).
On earnings, Southern is cheaper: it trades at 22.6× trailing earnings, against 25.6× for Constellation Energy.
Constellation Energy grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (26.0% versus 6.4% for Southern).
Southern keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 15.4% compared with 11.1% at Constellation Energy.
Both pay dividends: Constellation Energy yields 0.64% and Southern 3.2%.
Constellation Energy scores higher on the StockData Score (11 against 6 for Southern), which adds up 30 checks on valuation, growth, past performance, financial health and dividends.
Key numbers
A dot marks the better figure where higher or lower is clearly better.
| Metric | CEG | SO |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $93.0B | $108B |
| Share price | $262.38 | $93.71 |
| Change, 1 year | −34.6% | 0.21% |
| Change, 5 years | 598% | 48.5% |
| Beta (5Y) | 1.21 | 0.23 |
| Employees | 15K | 30K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 11 (better) | 6 |
| Valuation score | 2 | 2 |
| Growth score | 1 (better) | 0 |
| Performance score | 4 (better) | 1 |
| Health score | 2 (better) | 0 |
| Dividend score | 2 | 3 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 25.6× | 22.6× (better) |
| P/S | 3.0× (better) | 3.6× |
| P/B | 2.9× | – |
| EV/EBITDA | 14.2× | 13.2× (better) |
| P/FCF | 301× | – |
| PEG | – | 3.57 |
| FCF yield | 0.33% (better) | −3.0% |
| Fair value | $257.08 | $83.91 |
| Margin of safety | −2.1% (better) | −11.7% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 26.0% (better) | 6.4% |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 7.7% (better) | 7.7% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 15.2% (better) | 8.7% |
| EPS growth (TTM) | 6.9% | 7.0% (better) |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | – | 6.0% |
| Profitability | ||
| Operating margin | 14.7% | 24.2% (better) |
| Net margin | 11.1% | 15.4% (better) |
| FCF margin | 0.99% (better) | −10.8% |
| Return on equity | 15.3% | – |
| Return on invested capital | 8.2% | – |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 0.77 | – |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 2.90 (better) | 5.32 |
| Interest coverage | 5.9× | – |
| Current ratio | 1.46 (better) | 0.79 |
| Altman Z-score | 1.50 (better) | 0.85 |
| Piotroski F-score | 6 (better) | 4 |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 0.64% | 3.2% (better) |
| Payout ratio | 15.9% | 66.6% |
| Years of dividend growth | 3 | 16 (better) |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | – | 3.0% |
| Buyback yield | – | −3.9% |
| Shareholder yield | 0.64% (better) | −0.65% |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 81.3% | 72.6% |
| Held by insiders | 0.28% | 0.12% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | $418K (better) | −$5.6M |
| Superinvestors holding | 1 | – |
| Short interest, % of float | 3.4% | – |
Go deeper
- CEG stock overview
- CEG income statement
- CEG valuation and score
- SO stock overview
- SO income statement
- SO valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.