The AES holds the cleaner structural position, with valuation as the main driver and profitability adding further support. Sempra still leads on profitability and stability, which keeps the comparison from looking entirely one-sided. The market setup is broadly comparable for both — no clear directional signal from price behavior. The market is not adding a decisive signal either way — the structural read carries the weight.
The comparison is based on similar long-term financial trajectories, not sector labels.
The comparison is mainly decided in valuation, with the rest of the profile carrying less weight.
Both operate in: Utilities - Diversified
This comparison is based on industry proximity, not on functional trajectory similarity. AES and SRE share the same industry classification.
For a similarity-based comparison, see how The AES and Sempra each position within their functional peer groups in AssetNext.
Scores reflect position relative to comparable companies with similar long-term financial trajectories.
Pricing shapes this comparison more than a broad operating gap.
Left means cheaper relative valuation. Higher means stronger structure.
Sempra occupies the cheaper side of the setup map, although The AES Corporation still holds the stronger structural profile.
Valuation position uses peer-relative PE percentile (idx_pct_pe) where available.
The multiple-based pricing edge comes from a forward P/E that is 11.6 turns lower.
Profitability still favours Sempra, with a 11.2-point operating margin advantage keeping the comparison from looking fully resolved.
The page question resolves through valuation, but profitability and current pricing still keep the broader comparison from reading as fully aligned.
Break down the AES vs SRE comparison across all dimensions with the full interactive tool.
Explore how AES and SRE each compare against other companies in their peer groups.
Rule-based, descriptive analysis only. Derived from peer percentile dimensions. Not investment advice. Peer groups are determined algorithmically based on structural similarity — not by sector classification alone.
AssetNext scores reflect each company's structural position within its functional peer group — not a ranking against all stocks simultaneously. Peers are identified by similarity across eight financial dimensions, including revenue growth trajectory, margin structure, capital intensity, and earnings stability. A score of 75 means the company ranks in the top quartile within its own peer group, not the entire market.
Four dimension scores drive the overall peer score: Growth (revenue trajectory and expansion dynamics), Quality (margin structure and capital efficiency), Valuation (peer-relative pricing on standard multiples), and Stability (earnings consistency and financial predictability). Each dimension is scored 0–100 relative to the peer group, then combined into an overall peer score using equal weighting.
Scores are recalculated periodically as underlying financial data is updated. All analysis is descriptive and rule-based — AssetNext describes structural realities and never issues buy, sell or hold recommendations.