COMPARE · Data as of August 21, 2026
CIG vs RNW
Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. CIG scored 83.0, RNW scored 54.9 — CIG leads.
Compare another set
CIG
Comp En De Mn Cemig
83
$1.92
Score gap
28.1
CIG leads
RNW
ReNew Energy Global Plc
54.9
$6.81 · $2.5B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
- Fastest growthRNW+19.4%
- Strongest balance sheetCIG0.78
- Highest qualityRNW30 / 100
Side by side · every name on one set of axes
Fundamentals, head-to-head
CIG
RNW
$354mC
FCF
-$49mF
+8.1%B
Rev
+19.4%B+
0.78A
D/E
5.25D
6.2xA
P/E
—
0.33A
PEG
0.14A
—
P/S
1.7xB+
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.
Model signals
CIG
No notable signals flagged.
RNW
Why this score
- Foreign reporter (INR)
The companies
CIGComp En De Mn Cemig
Why now
Utilities - Regulated Electric · market cap n/a. Down 30% from 52-week high of $2.76 — deep drawdown territory. PEG 0.33 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 3 sell-side analysts publish a mean 1-yr target of $2.14 (implying +11% upside).
Moat
Net margin 18% beats the market median by a meaningful margin — the company is keeping more of every revenue dollar than the average S&P constituent. ROE 26% — top-decile capital efficiency. Either pricing leverage, low capital intensity, or aggressive buybacks; the durability story depends on which.
Risk
Down 30% from the 52-week high — the market is pricing in something the screen can't see; verify the bear case before sizing up. Dividend payout 80% of earnings on a 9.2% yield — distribution coverage is thin; one earnings stumble could force a dividend cut.
RNWReNew Energy Global Plc
Why now
Utilities - Renewable · market cap $2.5b. 17% off the 52-week high of $8.24. Revenue growing +19%, comfortably above the S&P median. PEG 0.14 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 4 sell-side analysts publish a mean 1-yr target of $7.92 (implying +16% upside).
Moat
Higher-variance name — the moat signals on the quantitative card are modest, so the durability case rests on execution (turning current growth into durable earnings power) or an un-monetized asset (IP / network effects / first-mover position) rather than an entrenched competitive position.
Risk
D/E 5.25 is elevated — limits strategic flexibility and raises refinancing exposure if rates stay higher for longer. Free cash flow is negative (-$49m) — capital raises or debt issuance likely required; dilution / leverage risk. Net margin 4.7% 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.