Bringing the fundamentals into focus…
Back to Emera Incorporated
How Emera Incorporated stacks up
EMA · against 70 other Utilities companies of similar size
Growth
97/ 100
Near the top of its peers.
Ranked #5 of 71 · scores higher than 94% of peers
Bars: peers in each 10-point band of the growth score10 peers with a growth score of 90–100, including EMA · Click a bar to see the companies
Why growth scores 97?
Weighted metrics compared with all Utilities companies.Mainly thanks to its earnings per share growth, revenue growth and 3-year revenue growth, which are stronger than most Utilities peers.
- faster revenue growth over three years: stronger than 65% of peers. 3-year revenue growth: 5.0% vs peer median 2.0%
- faster revenue growth over the last year: stronger than 92% of peers. Revenue growth: 21.9% vs peer median 2.5%
- faster growth in earnings per share: stronger than 93% of peers. Earnings per share growth: 97.7% vs peer median 1.7%
Metric by metric
Position: dot = EMA, ranked from the worst peer (left) to the best (right); tick = middle, shaded = middle half of peers.| Metric | EMA | Peer median | Better than | Position among peers | Weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Revenue growthHigher is better · 71 reported | 21.9% | 6.1% | 90% | 33% | |
| Earnings per share growthHigher is better · 63 reported | 97.7% | 6.5% | 89% | 33% | |
| 3-year revenue growthHigher is better · 70 reported | 5.0% | 2.8% | 67% | 33% |
Ranking by growth score
Top 5 and the companies ranked around EMA| Rank | Company | Market cap | Growth | Overall |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 48.3B BRL (≈$8.7B) | 100 | 69 | |
| 1 | 9.1B USD | 100 | 52 | |
| 3 | 11.3B GBP (≈$14.7B) | 99 | 66 | |
| 4 | 29.7B USD | 98 | 57 | |
| 5 | 15.4B USD | 97 | 54 | |
| 6 | 9.1B EUR (≈$10.0B) | 96 | 61 | |
| 6 | 921.0B INR (≈$11.1B) | 96 | 60 | |
| 8 | 10.6B USD | 92 | 54 | |
| 9 | 76.7B MYR (≈$16.9B) | 91 | 58 |
Scores are sector-relative percentiles from the latest snapshot, always calculated against the whole sector: narrowing the comparison group changes who you compare with, not the scores. Missing metrics are left out and the remaining weights rescaled. How we score