AMH vs UDR Stock Comparison
AMH currently leads UDR in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 48 vs 47. The clearest difference is risk resilience.
What is the main difference between AMH and UDR?
AMH leads the current stock comparison as American Homes 4 Rent, with the clearest separation coming from risk resilience and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
American Homes 4 Rent vs UDR, Inc.
AMH leads
AMH leads by 1 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience. Wall Street currently favors UDR on target upside.
Fragile: 2 of 6 evidence groups support AMH, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
American Homes 4 Rent
UDR, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors AMH over UDR, 48 versus 47 as of Oct 21, 2026. AMH's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience. AMH also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors UDR. 2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor AMH today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. AMH lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 1 points over 30 sessions.
Compare American Homes 4 Rent and UDR, 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 AMH and UDR 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.
- Risk Resilience69 vs 50AMH +19
- Quality39 vs 41Even
- Value45 vs 47Even
- Momentum51 vs 51Even
2 of 6 evidence groups favor AMH. AMH’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-20, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-19.
Largest factor move: Momentum +6
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +10
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
AMH's lead narrowed by 2 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — AMH and UDR both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
AMH (American Homes 4 Rent): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience.
UDR (UDR, Inc.): the counter-case, on fundamentals, analyst expectations.
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
AMHAMH on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
AMHAMH on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
AMHAMH on Risk Resilience, by 19 points.
Analyst upside
UDRUDR on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors AMH, analyst targets favor UDR. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | AMH | UDR | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +15% | +17.2% | UDR has more room |
| Target dispersion | +22.5% | +24.4% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 11 | 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 | AMH | UDR |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 43.10% | 3.81% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $0.200 | $1.423 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $1.200 | $1.715 |
| Years increased | 5 | 5 |
| No cut in window | Yes | Yes |
| Cohort rank | #1 | #21 |
AMH grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 43.10% a year against UDR's 3.81%. Neither company reduced its regular dividend in any year of the window.
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
2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor AMH. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | Even | 48 vs 47 |
| Fundamentals | UDRon balance | revenue growth -0.4% vs -0.1%; EPS growth -11.4% vs -63.8%; TTM ROE 6.9% vs 16.3%; gross margin 30.6% vs 55.7%; operating margin 25.3% vs 28.2% — UDR takes 3 of 4 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | Even | Value 45 vs 47 |
| Technicals | AMH | Price vs 50-day -3.4% vs -1%; vs 200-day -1.4% vs -6.6% |
| Risk Resilience | AMH | Risk Resilience 69 vs 50 |
| Analyst expectations | UDR | Target upside 15% vs 17.2% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of AMH and UDR 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 narrow at 1 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 2 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'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 AMH.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20AMH lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 1 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- AMH +1
- 48 vs 47
- 7 sessions ago
- AMH +1
- 47 vs 46
- 30 sessions ago
- AMH +2
- 42 vs 40
- 90 sessions ago
- AMH +7
- 51 vs 44
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.
2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
Only AMH
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (1.36%)
1 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only UDR
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (4.17%)
- 52-Week Low Proximity — bearish, risk, long horizon (2.9%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: Bollinger Band Squeeze, MACD Bullish Crossover.
UDR is conflicted, so the timing case there is weaker than the score alone suggests.
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 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -0.71%, AIQ +1 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +1.83%, AIQ +3 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.
- 1UDR closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 19 points behind, the largest single contributor to AMH's edge.
- 2UDR's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3AMH'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
UDR leads on balance| Metric | AMH | UDR |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -0.4% | -0.1% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -11.4% | -63.8% |
| Gross margin | 30.6% | 55.7% |
| Operating margin | 25.3% | 28.2% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 6.9% | 16.3% |
| Debt to equity | 0.76 | 2.04 |
Performance
AMH leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | AMH | UDR |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 1.7% | 1.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -0.4% | 0.9% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -6.1% | -13% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 2.1% | -1.6% |
| Year to date | -2.9% | -6.2% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -4.5% | -4.2% |
Technicals
AMH has the stronger structure| Metric | AMH | UDR |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 60.1 | 60.7 |
| ADX (14) | 29.4 | 25.5 |
| Price vs 50-day | -3.4% | -1% |
| Price vs 200-day | -1.4% | -6.6% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 15.2% | 16.1% |
Risk
AMH is the more resilient| Metric | AMH | UDR |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.02 | 0.14 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.35 | -0.32 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.58 | -0.48 |
| Max drawdown | -17.9% | -19.3% |
| Current drawdown | -10.5% | -16.6% |
| Annualized volatility | 19.9% | 20.6% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2% | -2% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, AMH or UDR?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, AMH is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 48 against UDR's 47. The edge comes from risk resilience. 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 AMH or UDR the better buy right now?
AMH carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor AMH over UDR?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. AMH leads Risk Resilience by 19 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, AMH or UDR?
Analyst price targets imply +15% upside for AMH and +17.2% for UDR, so the Street currently favors UDR. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors AMH. 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, AMH or UDR?
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, AMH or UDR?
AMH 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, AMH or UDR?
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, AMH or UDR?
AMH is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. AMH on Risk Resilience, by 19 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 AMH more profitable than UDR?
UDR leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 30.6% vs 55.7%; operating margin 25.3% vs 28.2%; ttm roe 6.9% vs 16.3%.
Is AMH's lead over UDR getting stronger or weaker?
AMH lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 1 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 AMH vs UDR verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: UDR closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 19 points behind, the largest single contributor to AMH's edge; UDR's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; AMH'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 AMH and UDR?
AMH: 2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. UDR: 1 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. 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 AMH is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On UDR it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare AMH and UDR 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.