Special offer. See more information about Outbyte and uninstall instructions. Please review EULA and Privacy policy.

iTechGuides is reader-supported. When you buy through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. Learn more

IREDA, PFC and REC are not interchangeable power-finance stocks: IREDA focuses on renewable-energy lending, PFC finances a broader range of power projects, and REC is PFC’s subsidiary. Compare their latest portfolios, growth, credit quality, capital and funding on matched reporting dates and accounting bases before weighing valuation. The available figures below are dated snapshots—not a current, like-for-like ranking or a basis for declaring one stock the best buy.

How the three lenders differ

IREDA: renewable-energy specialist

IREDA is the focused renewable-energy lender in this group. Its FY2024–25 annual report records a loan book of ₹76,282 crore at 31 March 2025, compared with ₹59,698 crore at 31 March 2024, and disbursements of ₹30,168 crore during FY2025. These are company-reported figures for specific dates and a specific fiscal year; they do not by themselves establish the quality or profitability of the lending. See IREDA’s Annual Report 2024–25.

PFC: broader power-sector financier

PFC finances domestic power projects across a broader sector mandate. The company describes its role as financing power projects since 1986; that is PFC’s own positioning, not an independent assessment. PFC’s investor materials are available through its investor-relations page.

Special offer. See more information about Outbyte and uninstall instructions. Please review EULA and Privacy policy.

REC: PFC subsidiary, not a fully independent peer

REC also finances power-sector projects, but comparing it with PFC as though the two were unrelated lenders misses their corporate relationship: PFC is REC’s holding company and REC is its subsidiary, according to ICRA. Their portfolios and financial results should still be examined separately, while recognizing that the two are linked. ICRA’s description and dated PFC figures appear in its 25 March 2026 rating rationale for PFC.

What the dated figures do—and do not—show

Two selected snapshots illustrate why matching dates and reporting bases matters. IREDA’s figures are from its FY2024–25 annual report; PFC’s are standalone figures reported by ICRA for the 9M FY2026 reporting point. They are not a harmonized comparison of all three lenders.

Company and reporting basis Reporting point Selected figures
IREDA, annual-report figures FY2024–25; loan-book balances at 31 March 2024 and 31 March 2025 Loan book: ₹59,698 crore at 31 March 2024 and ₹76,282 crore at 31 March 2025; FY2025 disbursements: ₹30,168 crore. Source: IREDA Annual Report 2024–25.
PFC, standalone 9M FY2026 reporting point, as stated in ICRA’s 25 March 2026 rationale Loan book: ₹5,69,627 crore; PAT: ₹13,727 crore; capital adequacy: 22.4%; gross NPA: 1.6%. Source: ICRA rating rationale.
REC No matching REC figures established here Not stated in the cited snapshots; use REC’s latest company-filed results and annual report to build a date- and basis-matched comparison.

PFC’s 9M FY2026 numbers are not a FY2026 closing snapshot. Nor should the figures be read as a direct scorecard against IREDA: the periods differ, and the cited IREDA loan-book values are balances while the disbursement figure is a fiscal-year flow.

Rank #2

Compare the companies on the same six dimensions

1. Mandate and actual loan portfolio

Start with each lender’s stated strategy, then check the latest portfolio tables to see what it actually finances. Look for exposure across renewable generation, other generation, transmission and distribution, and newer energy areas. A stated emphasis is not the same thing as the realized mix of outstanding loans.

Special offer. See more information about Outbyte and uninstall instructions. Please review EULA and Privacy policy.

2. Growth and earnings

Use the same fiscal period and the same basis—standalone or consolidated—for each lender. Compare loan-book growth and disbursements alongside sanctions, net interest income, operating costs and profit after tax (PAT). Rapid lending growth is not automatically superior if it requires more capital, carries higher funding costs or leads to weaker credit quality.

3. Credit quality

Review gross and net non-performing assets (NPAs), stage 3 assets where reported, provisioning coverage, recoveries and borrower or sector concentration. Definitions, recognition timing and reporting conventions can differ, so do not treat two ratios as directly comparable without checking how each lender calculates them. Growth should be considered alongside the risk and provisions attached to the loans.

4. Capital and funding

Capital adequacy is one measure of capacity to absorb losses and support lending, not a complete risk assessment. Also examine leverage, funding sources and borrowing costs. A lender’s ability to grow depends on both its capital position and the terms on which it can raise funds.

5. Ownership and distributions

Check current shareholding disclosures, government ownership, dividend history and any board-approved distribution before comparing shareholder returns. Verify the latest filings rather than assuming ownership or dividend policies have remained unchanged.

Special offer. See more information about Outbyte and uninstall instructions. Please review EULA and Privacy policy.

6. Valuation

Compare price-to-book, earnings multiples and dividend yield using one market-price date and clearly defined earnings or book-value denominators. State whether earnings are trailing or forecast, and use a consistent standalone or consolidated basis. No same-date set of current multiples for all three companies is established by the cited figures, so those figures do not support a current valuation ranking.

Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.Support on Ko-Fi

Where to verify the latest filings

For a current comparison, start with the underlying company filings rather than an index-page summary. IREDA’s financial-results page lists FY2025–26 reporting periods, while PFC’s investor pages include FY2025–26 and FY2026–27 materials; the relevant result documents must be opened and checked for their reporting dates and accounting basis. REC’s own latest filings are also needed to complete the comparison.

How to reach a useful investment comparison

  1. Fix the comparison date. Choose the latest reporting period available for all three and record its end date.
  2. Match the basis. Use standalone figures for all three or consolidated figures for all three where available; do not mix them without clearly flagging the difference.
  3. Build a portfolio and operating comparison. Record actual loan mix, loan-book growth, disbursements, earnings and operating costs, with each metric’s period and definition.
  4. Assess risk and funding alongside growth. Compare NPAs, provisions, concentration, capital adequacy, leverage and borrowing costs.
  5. Add ownership and distributions. Verify current government shareholding and declared dividends from current filings.
  6. Calculate valuation from one market date. Use consistent price-to-book, earnings and yield methods, and label trailing or forecast inputs.

Only after those steps can a reader judge whether a difference in valuation reflects a difference in growth expectations, portfolio risk, funding, capital needs or other factors. The anecdotal question of why someone might choose IREDA when PFC or REC appear to trade at lower multiples is not itself evidence of current multiples or of a broad investor consensus.

Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.

Special offer. See more information about Outbyte and uninstall instructions. Please review EULA and Privacy policy.