AIV vs UMH Stock Comparison
AIV currently leads UMH in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 55 vs 48. The clearest difference is quality, while UMH has the stronger risk resilience profile.
What is the main difference between AIV and UMH?
AIV leads the current stock comparison as Apartment Investment and Management Company, with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Apartment Investment and Management Company vs UMH Properties, Inc.
AIV leads
AIV leads by 7 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Value.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support AIV, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Apartment Investment and Management Company
UMH Properties, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors AIV over UMH, 55 versus 48 as of Oct 21, 2026. AIV's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and value, while UMH holds the stronger risk resilience profile. AIV also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor AIV today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. AIV lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 7 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Apartment Investment and Management Company and UMH Properties, 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 AIV and UMH 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.
- Quality80 vs 43AIV +37
- Risk Resilience38 vs 75UMH +37
- Value63 vs 47AIV +16
- Momentum25 vs 41UMH +16
3 of 6 evidence groups favor AIV. AIV’s edge is concentrated in quality and value; UMH keeps a meaningful risk resilience edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-20, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-19.
Largest factor move: Risk Resilience +1, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 7 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +9
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 2 active signals are unchanged.
AIV's lead narrowed by 2 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — AIV and UMH both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
AIV (Apartment Investment and Management Company): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and value.
UMH (UMH Properties, Inc.): the counter-case, on risk resilience, momentum, fundamentals.
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
AIVAIV on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
UMHUMH on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
AIVAIV on the peer-relative Value factor, by 16 points.
Momentum
UMHUMH on the Momentum factor, by 16 points.
Lower downside
UMHUMH on Risk Resilience, by 37 points.
Analyst upside
AIVAIV on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
Where the systematic read and the analyst consensus line up — and where they do not.
| Measure | AIV | UMH | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +521.1% | +18.2% | AIV has more room |
| Target dispersion | 0% | +2.8% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 1 | 2 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor AIV. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | AIV | 55 vs 48 |
| Fundamentals | UMHon balance | EPS growth -40% vs 66.7%; TTM ROE 105% vs 3.5%; gross margin 51.2% vs 51.4%; operating margin -84.2% vs 17.9% — UMH takes 2 of 3 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | AIV | Value 63 vs 47 |
| Technicals | UMH | Price vs 50-day -28.1% vs -4.8%; vs 200-day -54.8% vs -0.8% |
| Risk Resilience | UMH | Risk Resilience 38 vs 75 |
| Analyst expectations | AIV | Target upside 521.1% vs 18.2% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of AIV and UMH and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion is sensitive to small changes. Treat the lead as provisional and watch the flip conditions below.
- The AIQ gap is moderate at 7 points.
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Signal direction runs against the verdict: the leader is net-bearish while the laggard is net-bullish. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
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 AIV.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20AIV lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 7 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- AIV +7
- 55 vs 48
- 7 sessions ago
- AIV +7
- 55 vs 48
- 30 sessions ago
- AIV +8
- 56 vs 48
- 90 sessions ago
- AIV +8
- 61 vs 53
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.
1 bullish / 5 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only AIV
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (65.01%)
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (4.50%)
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
- 52-Week Low Proximity — bearish, risk, long horizon (0.0%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
2 bullish / 0 bearish
Only UMH
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (1.85%)
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
AIV leads the comparison while carrying a conflicted signal state, which is one reason the stability rating is not higher.
Price vs model alignment
Whether the latest session's price move confirms what the model did over the same session, or contradicts it.
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -3.59%, AIQ 0 points).
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 2 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -2.34%, AIQ +2 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.
- 1UMH closes the Quality gap — currently 37 points behind, the largest single contributor to AIV's edge.
- 2UMH generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish or Uptrend Structure Active.
- 3AIV's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 5 bearish rules at once.
- 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
UMH leads on balance| Metric | AIV | UMH |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 0% | 8.8% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -40% | 66.7% |
| Gross margin | 51.2% | 51.4% |
| Operating margin | -84.2% | 17.9% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 105% | 3.5% |
| Debt to equity | 0.86 | 0.89 |
Performance
UMH leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | AIV | UMH |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -3.5% | 1.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -22.7% | -2.7% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -36.3% | -0.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -59.9% | -1.5% |
| Year to date | -71.7% | -3.3% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -69.9% | 8.2% |
Technicals
UMH has the stronger structure| Metric | AIV | UMH |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 18.4 | 49.5 |
| ADX (14) | 72.5 | 19.8 |
| Price vs 50-day | -28.1% | -4.8% |
| Price vs 200-day | -54.8% | -0.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 35% | 17.9% |
Risk
UMH is the more resilient| Metric | AIV | UMH |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.3 | 0.11 |
| Sharpe ratio | -2.65 | 0.28 |
| Sortino ratio | -2.36 | 0.44 |
| Max drawdown | -72.5% | -14.8% |
| Current drawdown | -72.2% | -7.7% |
| Annualized volatility | 42.7% | 19.8% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3% | -1.9% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, AIV or UMH?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, AIV is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 55 against UMH's 48. The edge comes from quality and value. UMH is not without a case — it holds the better risk resilience profile, which matters more if that is the objective you are optimizing for. 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 AIV or UMH the better buy right now?
AIV carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor AIV over UMH?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. AIV leads Quality by 37 points; UMH leads Risk Resilience by 37 points; AIV leads Value by 16 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, AIV or UMH?
Analyst price targets imply +521.1% upside for AIV and +18.2% for UMH, so the Street currently favors AIV. The model and the Street agree here, which is a broader base of evidence than either alone. Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions, and dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Which is better value, AIV or UMH?
AIV is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. AIV on the peer-relative Value factor, by 16 points. 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, AIV or UMH?
UMH 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, AIV or UMH?
UMH on the Momentum factor, by 16 points. 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, AIV or UMH?
UMH is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. UMH on Risk Resilience, by 37 points. Risk Resilience is a weighted factor in the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is AIV more profitable than UMH?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 51.2% vs 51.4%; operating margin -84.2% vs 17.9%; ttm roe 105% vs 3.5%. Each name leads on one measure, and there is no single profitability composite that resolves the split — which of the two reads as "more profitable" depends on whether you weight pricing power or operating leverage.
Is AIV's lead over UMH getting stronger or weaker?
AIV lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 7 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 AIV vs UMH verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: UMH closes the Quality gap — currently 37 points behind, the largest single contributor to AIV's edge; UMH generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish or Uptrend Structure Active; AIV's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 5 bearish rules at once; 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 AIV and UMH?
AIV: 1 bullish / 5 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. UMH: 2 bullish / 0 bearish. A conflicted state means bullish and bearish rules are active on the same name at once — the technical evidence is not pointing one way, and a decision taken on it carries more timing risk. The most decision-relevant rule on AIV is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On UMH it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare AIV and UMH 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.