CMS Energy vs Public Service Enterprise
CMS and PEG side by side, both in combination electric and gas, and other utility. Figures are trailing twelve months unless noted, from SEC filings and end-of-day prices.
How CMS and PEG compare
Public Service Enterprise is the larger company, worth 1.7 times as much as CMS Energy ($37.0B against $22.0B).
On earnings, Public Service Enterprise is cheaper: it trades at 18.5× trailing earnings, against 21.1× for CMS Energy.
Public Service Enterprise grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (12.7% versus 9.9% for CMS Energy).
Public Service Enterprise keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 16.0% compared with 11.6% at CMS Energy.
Both pay dividends: CMS Energy yields 3.2% and Public Service Enterprise 3.6%.
Public Service Enterprise scores higher on the StockData Score (11 against 9 for CMS Energy), 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 | CMS | PEG |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $22.0B | $37.0B |
| Share price | $70.10 | $74.29 |
| Change, 1 year | −3.0% | −7.5% |
| Change, 5 years | 15.8% | 15.7% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.28 | 0.48 |
| Employees | 8,350 | 13K |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 9 | 11 (better) |
| Valuation score | 2 | 3 (better) |
| Growth score | 2 | 2 |
| Performance score | 2 | 3 (better) |
| Health score | 1 (better) | 0 |
| Dividend score | 2 | 3 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 21.1× | 18.5× (better) |
| P/S | 2.5× (better) | 3.0× |
| P/B | 2.2× | – |
| EV/EBITDA | 13.7× (better) | 21.1× |
| P/FCF | – | 134× |
| PEG | 2.85 | 0.68 (better) |
| FCF yield | – | 0.75% |
| Fair value | $73.23 | $67.90 |
| Margin of safety | 4.3% (better) | −9.4% |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 9.9% | 12.7% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 5.9% (better) | 4.8% |
| Net income growth (TTM) | 0.29% | 1.6% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −1.8% | 1.5% (better) |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 6.0% (better) | 2.3% |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | – | 64.0% |
| Operating margin | 18.9% | 23.1% (better) |
| Net margin | 11.6% | 16.0% (better) |
| FCF margin | – | 2.2% |
| Return on equity | 11.3% | – |
| Return on invested capital | 4.9% | – |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 1.95 | – |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 6.22 (better) | 8.39 |
| Interest coverage | 2.0× | 2.7× (better) |
| Current ratio | 0.94 (better) | 0.88 |
| Altman Z-score | 0.86 | 1.23 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 5 | 6 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 3.2% | 3.6% (better) |
| Payout ratio | – | 64.5% |
| Years of dividend growth | 16 (better) | 14 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 5.9% (better) | 5.2% |
| Buyback yield | −4.7% | – |
| Shareholder yield | −1.5% | 3.6% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 101% | 77.5% |
| Held by insiders | 0.58% | 0.17% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$1.9M (better) | −$2.8M |
| Short interest, % of float | – | 2.6% |
Go deeper
- CMS stock overview
- CMS income statement
- CMS valuation and score
- PEG stock overview
- PEG income statement
- PEG valuation and score
Other comparisons
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.