This comparison examines EME, IESC, and PWR, three leaders in the engineering and construction sector focused on electrical infrastructure, data centers, and utilities. Operating amid surging demand for electrification, renewable energy, and AI-driven data centers, these stocks have delivered outsized returns. Traders seeking momentum in industrials and investors eyeing long-term infrastructure growth will find value in analyzing their relative performance, backlogs, and valuation in the current market environment.
EME, or EMCOR Group, Inc., provides electrical and mechanical construction, along with facilities services, primarily in the U.S. and U.K. In recent market activity, shares have surged, hitting new highs near $944 amid strong Q1 2026 results: revenue rose 19.7% to $4.63 billion, diluted EPS jumped 30% to $6.84 (beating estimates), and remaining performance obligations hit a record $15.62 billion, up 32.9%. The company raised full-year 2026 revenue guidance to $18.50-$19.25 billion and EPS to $28.25-$29.75. Data center projects and mechanical services have fueled sentiment, with shares up 52.71% YTD and trading at a P/E of 31.35.
IESC, or IES Holdings, Inc., designs and installs integrated electrical and technology systems for data centers, commercial, residential, and infrastructure markets. Recent weeks saw shares climb to 52-week highs around $677, propelled by fiscal Q2 2026 earnings: revenue increased 17% to $974 million, EPS beat estimates at $5.44, backlog soared 62% to $3.9 billion on data center demand, and adjusted net income rose 26%. Acquisitions like Gulf Island bolstered capacity. With YTD gains of 70.02% and a P/E of 35.29, performance reflects robust commercial and industrial momentum despite residential softness.
PWR, or Quanta Services, Inc., delivers infrastructure solutions for electric power, renewables, pipelines, and communications. Shares recently touched 52-week highs near $778 after Q1 2026 results: revenue hit $7.87 billion (up significantly YoY), adjusted EPS of $2.68 beat estimates, and total backlog reached a record $48.5 billion with remaining performance obligations at $26.2 billion. Full-year guidance was substantially raised, citing utility and data center demand. YTD up 82.90% at a P/E of 106.43, the stock benefits from broad sector exposure and scale.
Tickeron’s Trending AI Robots page showcases the top 25 AI trading bots out of 351 total bots, curated for current market conditions across sectors like semiconductors, industrials, data centers, and AI infrastructure. These bots deliver impressive stats, including annualized returns up to +169%, win rates of 51-88%, and profit factors reaching 11.70. For instance, bots targeting data centers and industrials show +94% annualized returns with 70-80% win rates. With diverse strategies, timeframes, and tickers—from short-term momentum to long-term trends—users can copy top performers. Explore Tickeron’s hundreds of AI Trading Bots trading thousands of tickers to find strategies suited to today’s volatile environment.
All three operate in engineering & construction (Industrials sector), with heavy exposure to electrical infrastructure and data centers, but differ in scale and focus. PWR’s massive $115.8B market cap and $48.5B backlog provide unmatched stability and diversification across utilities, renewables, and pipelines, though its 106x P/E signals premium pricing. EME ($41.6B cap, 31x P/E) emphasizes mechanical/electrical services with $15.6B obligations, balancing growth (19.7% revenue rise) and value. IESC ($13.2B cap, 35x P/E), the smallest, offers explosive momentum via 62% backlog growth to $3.9B, laser-focused on data centers but with higher beta (1.81) and residential risks. Recent catalysts like AI power needs favor all, yet PWR leads in backlog conversion, IESC in relative valuation/growth, and EME in profitability consistency. Trade-offs include PWR’s debt vs. peers’ lower leverage.
Tickeron’s AI currently favors PWR due to its unmatched backlog scale, broadest sector positioning, and consistent trend strength amid infrastructure tailwinds. While IESC shows superior short-term momentum and EME better valuation, PWR’s relative stability and catalysts position it probabilistically higher for sustained outperformance.
The information on this webpage is provided for general informational and educational purposes only and is not intended as investment advice, a recommendation to purchase or sell any security, or an offer or solicitation related to investments. It does not consider your personal financial situation, goals, or risk profile, and all investing carries inherent risks, including the possibility of losing your entire investment. For more details, please review our full disclaimer. Disclaimers and Limitations
It is best to consider a long-term outlook for a ticker by using Fundamental Analysis (FA) ratings. The rating of 1 to 100, where 1 is best and 100 is worst, is divided into thirds. The first third (a green rating of 1-33) indicates that the ticker is undervalued; the second third (a grey number between 34 and 66) means that the ticker is valued fairly; and the last third (red number of 67 to 100) reflects that the ticker is undervalued. We use an FA Score to show how many ratings show the ticker to be undervalued (green) or overvalued (red).
EME’s FA Score shows that 3 FA rating(s) are green whileIESC’s FA Score has 3 green FA rating(s), and PWR’s FA Score reflects 3 green FA rating(s).
It is best to consider a short-term outlook for a ticker by using Technical Analysis (TA) indicators. We use Odds of Success as the percentage of outcomes which confirm successful trade signals in the past.
If the Odds of Success (the likelihood of the continuation of a trend) for each indicator are greater than 50%, then the generated signal is confirmed. A green percentage from 90% to 51% indicates that the ticker is in a bullish trend. A red percentage from 90% - 51% indicates that the ticker is in a bearish trend. All grey percentages are below 50% and are considered not to confirm the trend signal.
EME’s TA Score shows that 3 TA indicator(s) are bullish while IESC’s TA Score has 3 bullish TA indicator(s), and PWR’s TA Score reflects 4 bullish TA indicator(s).
EME (@Engineering & Construction) experienced а -0.93% price change this week, while IESC (@Engineering & Construction) price change was +2.32% , and PWR (@Engineering & Construction) price fluctuated +3.35% for the same time period.
The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Engineering & Construction industry was -2.94%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was +3.48%, and the average quarterly price growth was +20.60%.
EME is expected to report earnings on Jul 23, 2026.
IESC is expected to report earnings on Jul 31, 2026.
PWR is expected to report earnings on Jul 30, 2026.
Engineering & Construction includes companies that engage in non-residential construction and contract services, including ventilation, heating and air conditioning (HVAC) services. The level/value of construction & engineering activity is one of the potentially relevant indicators of the health of businesses, and hence of the overall economy. Some of the large-cap U.S. companies in this industry include Jacobs Engineering Group Inc,, AECOM and Quanta Services, Inc.
| EME | IESC | PWR | |
| Capitalization | 40.6B | 13.6B | 116B |
| EBITDA | 2.02B | 537M | 2.71B |
| Gain YTD | 49.416 | 75.364 | 82.520 |
| P/E Ratio | 30.67 | 36.38 | 105.62 |
| Revenue | 17.7B | 3.63B | 30.1B |
| Total Cash | 916M | 263M | 365M |
| Total Debt | 510M | 107M | 6.32B |
EME | IESC | PWR | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
OUTLOOK RATING 1..100 | 84 | 22 | 19 | |
VALUATION overvalued / fair valued / undervalued 1..100 | 77 Overvalued | 83 Overvalued | 93 Overvalued | |
PROFIT vs RISK RATING 1..100 | 6 | 6 | 3 | |
SMR RATING 1..100 | 23 | 22 | 60 | |
PRICE GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 39 | 36 | 3 | |
P/E GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 18 | 14 | 10 | |
SEASONALITY SCORE 1..100 | 50 | 50 | 50 |
Tickeron ratings are formulated such that a rating of 1 designates the most successful stocks in a given industry, while a rating of 100 points to the least successful stocks for that industry.
EME's Valuation (77) in the Engineering And Construction industry is in the same range as IESC (83) and is in the same range as PWR (93). This means that EME's stock grew similarly to IESC’s and similarly to PWR’s over the last 12 months.
PWR's Profit vs Risk Rating (3) in the Engineering And Construction industry is in the same range as EME (6) and is in the same range as IESC (6). This means that PWR's stock grew similarly to EME’s and similarly to IESC’s over the last 12 months.
IESC's SMR Rating (22) in the Engineering And Construction industry is in the same range as EME (23) and is somewhat better than the same rating for PWR (60). This means that IESC's stock grew similarly to EME’s and somewhat faster than PWR’s over the last 12 months.
PWR's Price Growth Rating (3) in the Engineering And Construction industry is somewhat better than the same rating for IESC (36) and is somewhat better than the same rating for EME (39). This means that PWR's stock grew somewhat faster than IESC’s and somewhat faster than EME’s over the last 12 months.
PWR's P/E Growth Rating (10) in the Engineering And Construction industry is in the same range as IESC (14) and is in the same range as EME (18). This means that PWR's stock grew similarly to IESC’s and similarly to EME’s over the last 12 months.
| EME | IESC | PWR | |
|---|---|---|---|
| RSI ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 64% | 2 days ago 64% | 2 days ago 60% |
| Stochastic ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 49% | 2 days ago 64% | 6 days ago 59% |
| Momentum ODDS (%) | N/A | 2 days ago 83% | 6 days ago 81% |
| MACD ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 53% | N/A | 6 days ago 78% |
| TrendWeek ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 55% | 2 days ago 84% | 2 days ago 76% |
| TrendMonth ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 71% | 2 days ago 84% | 2 days ago 77% |
| Advances ODDS (%) | 11 days ago 70% | 5 days ago 85% | 3 days ago 74% |
| Declines ODDS (%) | 4 days ago 46% | 18 days ago 68% | 9 days ago 59% |
| BollingerBands ODDS (%) | N/A | N/A | 2 days ago 58% |
| Aroon ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 73% | 2 days ago 84% | 2 days ago 76% |
| 1 Day | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| ETFs / NAME | Price $ | Chg $ | Chg % |
| CBXL | 20.74 | N/A | N/A |
| Calamos Ladrd Bitcoin 90 Str Alt Prt ETF | |||
| ABCS | 31.46 | -0.31 | -0.98% |
| Alpha Blue Capital US Sm-Md Cp Dyn ETF | |||
| IZRL | 30.16 | -0.37 | -1.21% |
| ARK Israel Innovative Technology ETF | |||
| OEF | 369.36 | -4.55 | -1.22% |
| iShares S&P 100 ETF | |||
| BBSC | 83.17 | -1.60 | -1.89% |
| JPMorgan BetaBuilders US Sml Cp Eq ETF | |||
A.I.dvisor indicates that over the last year, EME has been closely correlated with FIX. These tickers have moved in lockstep 79% of the time. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is a high statistical probability that if EME jumps, then FIX could also see price increases.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To EME | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| EME | 100% | -1.82% | ||
| FIX - EME | 79% Closely correlated | -2.39% | ||
| MTZ - EME | 70% Closely correlated | -4.57% | ||
| MYRG - EME | 69% Closely correlated | -1.19% | ||
| IESC - EME | 67% Closely correlated | -2.15% | ||
| PWR - EME | 66% Loosely correlated | -1.29% | ||
More | ||||
A.I.dvisor indicates that over the last year, PWR has been closely correlated with MTZ. These tickers have moved in lockstep 79% of the time. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is a high statistical probability that if PWR jumps, then MTZ could also see price increases.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To PWR | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PWR | 100% | -1.29% | ||
| MTZ - PWR | 79% Closely correlated | -4.57% | ||
| MYRG - PWR | 79% Closely correlated | -1.19% | ||
| FIX - PWR | 76% Closely correlated | -2.39% | ||
| IESC - PWR | 67% Closely correlated | -2.15% | ||
| EME - PWR | 66% Loosely correlated | -1.82% | ||
More | ||||