COMPARE · Data as of August 13, 2026
KEN vs MWH
Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. KEN scored 61.6, MWH scored 72.0 — MWH leads.
Compare another set
KEN
Kenon Holdings Ltd.
61.6
$67.74 · $3.3B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
10.4
MWH leads
MWH
SOLV Energy, Inc.
72
$32.73 · $6.9B
fundamentals as of
The model, pillar by pillar (0–100 each)
KEN
stronger →← stronger
MWH
57
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
77
85
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
95
48
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
85
MWH is stronger on 3 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
KEN
MWH
-$26mF
FCF
$368mC
+16.1%B+
Rev
+34.8%A
0.74A-
D/E
0.10A
3.3xC+
P/S
—
2.59C
PEG
1.40B
—
P/E
52.0xD
Winner per row is the stronger grade in our model; a tie or a missing value shows no highlight.
Valuation · DCF cross-check
KEN
MWH
—
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
7% below
—
Growth the price implies10-yr FCF · lower = less priced in
~9%/yr
—
1-yr DCF upside
-11%
—
5-yr DCF upside
+7%
—
10-yr DCF upside
+40%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
KEN
Why this score
- Cut its dividend
- Short track record
MWH
Why this score
- Short track record
The companies
KENKenon Holdings Ltd.
Why now
Utilities - Independent Power Producers · market cap $3.3b. Down 29% from 52-week high of $95.93 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +16%, comfortably above the S&P median.
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
Free cash flow is negative (-$26m) — capital raises or debt issuance likely required; dilution / leverage risk. Dividend payout 312% of earnings on a 6.0% yield — distribution coverage is thin; one earnings stumble could force a dividend cut. Trailing P/E 44x sits well above the S&P median (~20x) — multiple compression is a real risk if revenue growth decelerates.
MWHSOLV Energy, Inc.
Why now
Utilities - Renewable · market cap $6.9b. Down 32% from 52-week high of $48.40 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +35% — in hypergrowth territory. 11 sell-side analysts publish a mean 1-yr target of $47.18 (implying +44% 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
Trailing P/E 52.0x prices in sustained high growth — any quarter that disappoints triggers sharp re-rating. Down 32% from the 52-week high — the market is pricing in something the screen can't see; verify the bear case before sizing up. Net margin 4.6% 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 KEN and MWH diverge
On the headline score the gap is 10.4 points in favour of MWH. The widest single difference is Value, where MWH leads by 37.4 points.
- ValueKEN 47.8 · MWH 85.2MWH +37.4
- QualityKEN 57.4 · MWH 77.3MWH +19.9
- GrowthKEN 85.1 · MWH 95.2MWH +10.1
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.