AHH vs SPG Stock Comparison
SPG currently leads AHH in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 60 vs 36. The clearest difference is quality.
What is the main difference between AHH and SPG?
SPG leads the current stock comparison as Simon Property Group, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
AH Realty Trust, Inc. vs Simon Property Group, Inc.
SPG leads
SPG leads by 24 AIQ points, primarily on Quality, and the lead has widened from 21 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors AHH on target upside.
Stable: 3 of 6 evidence groups support SPG, its lead is widening, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
AH Realty Trust, Inc.
Simon Property Group, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors SPG over AHH, 60 versus 36 as of Oct 21, 2026. SPG's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality. SPG also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors AHH. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor SPG today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. SPG lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 21 to 24 points over 30 sessions.
Compare AH Realty Trust, Inc. and Simon Property Group, Inc. across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Performance over time
Total return with distributions reinvested, from daily closes.
Total return comparison
Growth of $10,000, distributions reinvested
Split-adjusted closes; each distribution is reinvested at the close on its ex-dividend date. Taxes and trading costs are not modeled.
Compare AHH and SPG against another ticker
Open a multi-ticker workspace without changing this focused pair page.
AIQ Factor Divergence
Where the two separate, on the four dimensions behind the AIQ Score. Bars read outward from a shared zero: further from the centre is a wider gap.
- Quality13 vs 70SPG +57
- Value49 vs 52Even
- Risk Resilience55 vs 53Even
3 of 6 evidence groups favor SPG. SPG’s edge is concentrated in quality.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-20, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-19.
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session.
Largest factor move: Momentum +20
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 2 active signals are unchanged.
SPG's lead widened by 5 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — AHH and SPG both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
SPG (Simon Property Group, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality.
AHH (AH Realty Trust, Inc.): the counter-case, on analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 40.5% against 18.2%.
The AIQ Score and Wall Street therefore point in different directions on this pair.
Which one fits your objective
The same two names rank differently depending on what you are optimizing for. All six reads are shown at once — none of them is hidden behind a toggle.
Balanced
SPGSPG on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
AHHAHH on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
SPGSPG carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
AHHAHH on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors SPG, analyst targets favor AHH. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | AHH | SPG | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +33.1% | +5.9% | AHH has more room |
| Target dispersion | 0% | +41.8% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 1 | 11 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
The two are measuring different things. The AIQ Score reads current fundamentals, valuation, trend and risk; analyst targets price forward expectations. A divergence of this kind is either a contrarian opportunity or a sign the model is missing something already priced in — it is worth resolving before acting on either.
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | AHH | SPG |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 4.94% | 7.34% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $0.440 | $6.000 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $0.560 | $8.550 |
| Years increased | 4 | 4 |
| No cut in window | No (1) | No (1) |
| Cohort rank | not ranked | not ranked |
SPG grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 7.34% a year against AHH's 4.94%.
Yield and payout ratio shown elsewhere on this page are current values, not part of the study window.
Split-adjusted regular dividends per share, 2020–2025, excluding special dividends. Research as of Sep 19, 2026.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor SPG. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | SPG | 36 vs 60 |
| Fundamentals | SPG | revenue growth 0.4% vs 1.9%; TTM ROE -8.3% vs 112.7%; gross margin 28% vs 84.1%; operating margin 39.5% vs 48.1% |
| Valuation | Even | Value 49 vs 52 |
| Technicals | SPG | Price vs 50-day 0.4% vs -1.5%; vs 200-day -8.8% vs 1.1% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 55 vs 53 |
| Analyst expectations | AHH | Target upside 33.1% vs 5.9% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of AHH and SPG and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion rests on a wide gap and broad agreement. It is unlikely to turn on a single session.
- The AIQ gap is wide at 24 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's signal state is cleanly positive. (supports the conclusion holding)
Stability combines the score gap, how broadly the evidence agrees, how steady the lead has been across daily snapshots, the current signal state on both names, and analyst dispersion on SPG.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20SPG lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 21 to 24 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- SPG +24
- 36 vs 60
- 7 sessions ago
- SPG +19
- 36 vs 55
- 30 sessions ago
- SPG +21
- 36 vs 57
- 90 sessions ago
- SPG +18
- 33 vs 51
The lead has not changed hands in this window.
AIQ Signal Divergence
Only the signals that bear on the head-to-head. A conflicted name is carrying bullish and bearish rules at the same time — the technical evidence is not pointing one way.
No active signals
No signal that the other name lacks.
2 bullish / 0 bearish
Only SPG
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (1.85%)
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
Price vs model alignment
Whether the latest session's price move confirms what the model did over the same session, or contradicts it.
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 5 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -0.7%, AIQ +5 points).
What would flip this result
A state, not a forecast. These are the specific, observable changes that would reverse the verdict — not a price prediction.
- 1AHH closes the Quality gap — currently 57 points behind, the largest single contributor to SPG's edge.
- 2AHH generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as Golden Cross Active or MACD Bullish Crossover.
- 3SPG's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict.
- 4A regime shift changes factor weighting — Quality and Value carry the heaviest weights in the composite, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
The full evidence
Every number behind the verdict. The leader is called above each group so you are not left to solve it from the table.
Fundamentals
SPG leads on balance| Metric | AHH | SPG |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 0.4% | 1.9% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 100% | 0.7% |
| Gross margin | 28% | 84.1% |
| Operating margin | 39.5% | 48.1% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -8.3% | 112.7% |
| Debt to equity | 2.03 | 6.64 |
Performance
SPG leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | AHH | SPG |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 2.3% | 3.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -9.6% | 0.5% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -2.5% | -8.5% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -11.8% | 1.1% |
| Year to date | -5.6% | 11.8% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -30.9% | 17.1% |
Technicals
SPG has the stronger structure| Metric | AHH | SPG |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 24.3 | 61.9 |
| ADX (14) | 30.8 | 33.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | 0.4% | -1.5% |
| Price vs 200-day | -8.8% | 1.1% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 40.5% | 18.2% |
Risk
Split| Metric | AHH | SPG |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.29 | 0.22 |
| Sharpe ratio | -1.29 | 0.69 |
| Sortino ratio | -1.75 | 1.1 |
| Max drawdown | -21.4% | -16.5% |
| Current drawdown | -17.3% | -12.6% |
| Annualized volatility | 28.7% | 18.9% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3% | -1.7% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, AHH or SPG?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, SPG is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 60 against AHH's 36. The edge comes from quality. This is a systematic score, not a recommendation: it ranks the two on the same evidence, it does not know your holding period or tax position.
Is AHH or SPG the better buy right now?
SPG carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 2026, and the comparison is rated Stable — 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Stable rating means the gap is wide and the evidence is broad, so the conclusion is unlikely to turn on a single session.
Why does the AIQ Score favor SPG over AHH?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. SPG leads Quality by 57 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, AHH or SPG?
Analyst price targets imply +33.1% upside for AHH and +5.9% for SPG, so the Street currently favors AHH. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors SPG. The two are measuring different things: the model reads current fundamentals, valuation, trend and risk; the Street is pricing forward expectations. A divergence of this kind is either a contrarian opportunity or a sign the model is missing something the analysts have already priced — it is the single most useful row on this page to investigate. Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions, and dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Which is better value, AHH or SPG?
Neither name separates on the peer-relative Value factor. The two are level on Value. The Value factor reads valuation relative to sector peers and to the company's own fundamental quality, so it is not the same as simply having the lower multiple.
Which has stronger growth, AHH or SPG?
AHH on combined revenue and EPS growth. Growth here is measured on reported revenue and earnings, not on forward estimates — it describes what the businesses have delivered, not what the Street expects next.
Which has stronger momentum, AHH or SPG?
The two are level on Momentum. Momentum is one of the four weighted factors in the AIQ composite. It has documented persistence over three- to twelve-month horizons, which makes it a timing input rather than a reason to hold something indefinitely.
Which is riskier, AHH or SPG?
SPG is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. SPG carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility. Risk Resilience is a weighted factor in the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is AHH more profitable than SPG?
SPG leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 28% vs 84.1%; operating margin 39.5% vs 48.1%; ttm roe -8.3% vs 112.7%.
Is SPG's lead over AHH getting stronger or weaker?
SPG lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 21 to 24 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the AHH vs SPG verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: AHH closes the Quality gap — currently 57 points behind, the largest single contributor to SPG's edge; AHH generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as Golden Cross Active or MACD Bullish Crossover; SPG's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict; a regime shift changes factor weighting — Quality and Value carry the heaviest weights in the composite, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
What do the current signals say about AHH and SPG?
AHH: No active signals. SPG: 2 bullish / 0 bearish. On SPG it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare AHH and SPG with others
Continue your research
This page answers which of the two. These answer the questions on either side of it.
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk, each carrying a fixed weight. Sentiment is reported separately as SentimentPulse and is not folded into the composite. Scores refresh every trading day, and this page regenerates from the latest snapshot rather than being written once.
The verdict names a leader, states how broadly six independent evidence groups agree, and rates how durable that conclusion is given the score gap, its recent trajectory and the current signal state on both names.
How to use side-by-side comparison →This comparison is informational and educational, not investment advice. AIQ scores update daily; re-check after earnings, guidance or macro data that materially changes either name’s factor profile.