COMPARE · Data as of August 21, 2026
FE vs KEP
Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. FE scored 62.1, KEP scored 53.9 — FE leads.
Compare another set
FE
FirstEnergy Corp.
62.1
$45.96 · $26.6B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
8.2
FE leads
KEP
Korea Electric Power Corporation
53.9
$11.26 · $14.5B
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
- Fastest growthFE+11.3%
- Highest qualityKEP74 / 100
- Largest discount to fair valueKEP-72%
Side by side · every name on one set of axes
The model, pillar by pillar (0–100 each)
FE
stronger →← stronger
KEP
55
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
74
82
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
30
53
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
97
KEP is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
FE
KEP
-$1.7bF
FCF
$3.6bB
+11.3%B
Rev
+4.3%C+
2.01C
D/E
—
1.7xA-
P/S
—
1.68C+
PEG
0.44A
—
P/E
2.6xA
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
FE
KEP
—
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
72% below
—
Growth the price implies10-yr FCF · lower = less priced in
decline
—
1-yr DCF upside
+297%
—
5-yr DCF upside
+256%
—
10-yr DCF upside
+206%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
FE
Why this score
- Durable high returns
KEP
Why this score
- Foreign reporter (KRW)
The companies
FEFirstEnergy Corp.
Why now
Utilities - Regulated Electric · market cap $26.6b. 12% off the 52-week high of $52.34. Revenue growing +11%, comfortably above the S&P median. 12 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $53.25 (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 2.01 is elevated — limits strategic flexibility and raises refinancing exposure if rates stay higher for longer. Free cash flow is negative (-$1.7b) — capital raises or debt issuance likely required; dilution / leverage risk. Trailing P/E 97.8x prices in sustained high growth — any quarter that disappoints triggers sharp re-rating.
KEPKorea Electric Power Corporation
Why now
Utilities - Regulated Electric · market cap $14.5b. Down 52% from 52-week high of $23.41 — deep drawdown territory. PEG 0.44 — paying under fair value for the growth rate.
Moat
Moat signals from the quantitative card are modest — profitability and capital efficiency are middle-of-pack. The thesis here depends on softer factors (switching costs, brand, distribution, regulatory protection) not captured by the quality-growth screen.
Risk
Down 52% from the 52-week high — the market is pricing in something the screen can't see; verify the bear case before sizing up.
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 FE and KEP diverge
On the headline score the gap is 8.2 points in favor of FE. They get there differently, though — each leads on a different pillar, so the better pick depends on which you weight.
- GrowthFE 81.6 · KEP 29.9FE +51.7
- ValueFE 53.1 · KEP 97.4KEP +44.3
- QualityFE 55.3 · KEP 73.7KEP +18.4
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.