COMPARE · Data as of August 21, 2026
AWR vs MWH
Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. AWR scored 56.7, MWH scored 72.0 — MWH leads.
Compare another set
Different reporting periods. AWR's fundamentals are as of June 2026, but MWH's are as of March 2026 — a 3-month gap. Growth, margin and valuation figures below therefore describe different windows and aren't strictly like-for-like.
AWR
American States Water Company
56.7
$88.63 · $3.5B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
15.3
MWH leads
MWH
SOLV Energy, Inc.
72
$28.34 · $5.7B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
- CheapestAWR24.2x
- Fastest growthMWH+34.8%
- Strongest balance sheetMWH0.10
- Highest qualityMWH75 / 100
- Largest discount to fair valueMWH-34%
Side by side · every name on one set of axes
Growth against the P/E multiple. Up and to the right is cheaper and faster — the quality-growth idea in one picture. Points beyond the axis are pinned to the edge and marked off-scale rather than allowed to compress everything else.
The model, pillar by pillar (0–100 each)
AWR
stronger →← stronger
MWH
64
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
75
61
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
95
47
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
87
MWH is stronger on 3 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
AWR
MWH
$21mC-
FCF
$368mC
+13.2%B+
Rev
+34.8%A
0.82A-
D/E
0.10A
24.2xC
P/E
48.0xD
2.98C
PEG
1.17B+
Winner per row is the stronger grade; where grades tie, the better figure breaks it. A true tie or a missing value shows no highlight.
Valuation · DCF cross-check
AWR
MWH
648% above
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
34% below
~55%/yr
Growth the price implies10-yr FCF · lower = less priced in
~4%/yr
-87%
1-yr DCF upside
+15%
-87%
5-yr DCF upside
+51%
-87%
10-yr DCF upside
+125%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
AWR
Why this score
- Raising its dividend
- Diluting shareholders
MWH
Why this score
- Short track record
The companies
AWRAmerican States Water Company
Why now
Utilities - Regulated Water · market cap $3.5b. Trading near 52-week high of $90.42 — momentum setup, limited technical margin of safety. Revenue growing +13%, comfortably above the S&P median.
Moat
Net margin 21% sits well above the S&P median (~11%) — suggests structural pricing advantage or cost discipline competitors can't quickly close. ROE 13% meets the long-run market sustainable threshold — solid but not differentiated; the durability comes from elsewhere.
Risk
Trading within 2% of the 52-week high — limited technical margin of safety; a momentum reversal would test conviction.
MWHSOLV Energy, Inc.
Why now
Utilities - Renewable · market cap $5.7b. Down 41% from 52-week high of $48.40 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +35% — in hypergrowth territory. 11 sell-side analysts rate this a Strong Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $45.18 (implying +59% upside).
Moat
Free cash flow runs well ahead of reported net income — non-cash charges (depreciation, intangible amortization) are holding down GAAP earnings while cash generation stays strong.
Risk
Down 41% from the 52-week high — the market is pricing in something the screen can't see; verify the bear case before sizing up. Trailing P/E 48x sits well above the S&P median (~20x) — multiple compression is a real risk if revenue growth decelerates. Net margin 3.8% is thin — operating leverage cuts both ways; input-cost inflation or pricing pressure hits the bottom line first.
Verdict — model-derived comparison
Generating verdict… typically 5–10 seconds
Not investment advice. The Bull Rankings publishes a quantitative ranking model and accompanying analysis for general informational purposes only. Nothing on this page is a recommendation to buy, sell, or hold any security; nothing is personalized to your circumstances, risk tolerance, or tax situation. Investing carries the risk of loss — invest at your own risk and consider consulting a licensed financial professional before acting on anything you read here. See terms and methodology for full disclosures.
Where AWR and MWH diverge
On the headline score the gap is 15.3 points in favor of MWH. The widest single difference is Value, where MWH leads by 39.4 points.
- ValueAWR 47.1 · MWH 86.5MWH +39.4
- GrowthAWR 60.5 · MWH 95.2MWH +34.7
- QualityAWR 64.0 · MWH 74.9MWH +10.9
Pillars run 0–100 against sector peers, so a score is a statement about a company relative to its own industry rather than to the other name here. A wide Value gap usually means the market already prices the difference in quality or growth — which is the trade-off this comparison comes down to.