CMS Energy vs NiSource
CMS and NI 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 NI compare
CMS Energy and NiSource are about the same size, with market caps of $21.8B and $21.8B.
On earnings, NiSource is cheaper: it trades at 23.2× trailing earnings, against 24.9× for CMS Energy.
NiSource grew revenue faster over the last twelve months (15.3% versus 8.2% for CMS Energy).
CMS Energy keeps more of each dollar of sales as profit, with a net margin of 9.7% compared with 8.2% at NiSource.
Both pay dividends: CMS Energy yields 2.5% and NiSource 2.0%.
CMS Energy scores higher on the StockData Score (7 against 6 for NiSource), 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 | NI |
|---|---|---|
| Size and price | ||
| Market cap | $21.8B | $21.8B |
| Share price | $69.62 | $45.55 |
| Change, 1 year | −6.0% | 4.2% |
| Change, 5 years | 14.3% | 80.6% |
| Beta (5Y) | 0.28 | 0.45 |
| Employees | 8,350 | 7,738 |
| StockData Score | ||
| Total score | 7 (better) | 6 |
| Valuation score | 0 | 0 |
| Growth score | 2 | 2 |
| Performance score | 2 (better) | 1 |
| Health score | 1 (better) | 0 |
| Dividend score | 2 | 3 (better) |
| Valuation | ||
| P/E | 24.9× | 23.2× (better) |
| P/S | 2.4× | 1.9× (better) |
| P/B | 2.2× (better) | 2.3× |
| EV/EBITDA | 16.2× | 13.2× (better) |
| PEG | 3.36 (better) | 4.97 |
| FCF yield | – | −7.2% |
| Fair value | $62.25 | $41.12 |
| Margin of safety | −11.8% | −10.8% (better) |
| Growth | ||
| Revenue growth (TTM) | 8.2% | 15.3% (better) |
| Revenue growth, 5Y average | 5.9% | 7.8% (better) |
| Net income growth (TTM) | −16.7% | 4.9% (better) |
| EPS growth (TTM) | −19.3% | 3.2% (better) |
| EPS growth, 5Y average | 6.0% | – |
| Profitability | ||
| Gross margin | – | 86.4% |
| Operating margin | 13.8% | 16.6% (better) |
| Net margin | 9.7% (better) | 8.2% |
| FCF margin | – | −13.7% |
| Return on equity | 9.4% | 10.1% (better) |
| Return on invested capital | 3.5% | 5.7% (better) |
| Financial health | ||
| Debt / equity | 2.06 | 1.91 (better) |
| Net debt / EBITDA | 7.55 | 5.68 (better) |
| Interest coverage | 1.5× | 2.4× (better) |
| Current ratio | 0.95 (better) | 0.50 |
| Altman Z-score | 0.81 | 0.86 (better) |
| Piotroski F-score | 5 | 6 (better) |
| Dividends and buybacks | ||
| Dividend yield | 2.5% (better) | 2.0% |
| Payout ratio | – | 60.8% |
| Years of dividend growth | 16 (better) | 9 |
| Dividend growth, 5Y average | 5.9% | 5.9% (better) |
| Buyback yield | −3.1% | −0.29% (better) |
| Shareholder yield | −0.67% | 1.7% (better) |
| Ownership | ||
| Held by institutions | 101% | 96.4% |
| Held by insiders | 0.58% | 0.37% |
| Insider net buying, 12 months | −$1.6M (better) | −$6.9M |
| Short interest, % of float | – | 4.2% |
Go deeper
- CMS stock overview
- CMS income statement
- CMS valuation and score
- NI stock overview
- NI income statement
- NI valuation and score
Other comparisons
- AEE vs CMS
- AEE vs NI
- AES vs NI
- CMS vs CMS.PB
- CMS vs UGI
- CMS vs WEC
- CMS.PB vs NI
- DUK vs NI
- ED vs NI
- EXC vs NI
- NI vs PCG
- NI vs PEG
For information only, not investment advice. Check the source filings before relying on any figure.