AVB vs UMH Stock Comparison
UMH currently leads AVB in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 48 vs 47. The clearest difference is risk resilience, while AVB has the stronger quality profile.
What is the main difference between AVB and UMH?
UMH leads the current stock comparison as UMH Properties, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from risk resilience and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
AvalonBay Communities, Inc. vs UMH Properties, Inc.
UMH leads
UMH leads by 1 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Value.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support UMH, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
AvalonBay Communities, Inc.
UMH Properties, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors UMH over AVB, 48 versus 47 as of Oct 21, 2026. UMH's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and value, while AVB holds the stronger quality profile. UMH also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor UMH today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. UMH lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 1 points over 30 sessions.
Compare AvalonBay Communities, Inc. 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 AVB 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.
- Risk Resilience46 vs 75UMH +29
- Quality51 vs 43AVB +8
- Value43 vs 47UMH +4
3 of 6 evidence groups favor UMH. UMH’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and value; AVB keeps a meaningful quality edge.
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 +9
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 2 active signals are unchanged.
The lead changed hands: UMH moved ahead of AVB in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — AVB and UMH both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
UMH (UMH Properties, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and value.
AVB (AvalonBay Communities, Inc.): the counter-case, on quality, fundamentals, technicals.
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
UMHUMH on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
UMHUMH on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
UMHUMH on the peer-relative Value factor, by 4 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
UMHUMH on Risk Resilience, by 29 points.
Analyst upside
UMHUMH 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 | AVB | UMH | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +7.9% | +18.2% | UMH has more room |
| Target dispersion | +11.6% | +2.8% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 12 | 2 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | AVB | UMH |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 1.94% | 4.33% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $6.360 | $0.720 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $7.000 | $0.890 |
| Years increased | 3 | 5 |
| No cut in window | Yes | Yes |
| Cohort rank | #24 | #19 |
UMH grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 4.33% a year against AVB's 1.94%. 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
3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor UMH. 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 | 47 vs 48 |
| Fundamentals | AVBon balance | EPS growth -52.4% vs 66.7%; TTM ROE 8.7% vs 3.5%; gross margin 52.7% vs 51.4%; operating margin 28.4% vs 17.9% — AVB takes 3 of 4 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | UMH | Value 43 vs 47 |
| Technicals | AVB | Price vs 50-day -2.1% vs -4.8%; vs 200-day 2.3% vs -0.8% |
| Risk Resilience | UMH | Risk Resilience 46 vs 75 |
| Analyst expectations | UMH | Target upside 7.9% vs 18.2% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of AVB 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 narrow at 1 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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'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 UMH.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20UMH lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 1 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- UMH +1
- 47 vs 48
- 7 sessions ago
- UMH +1
- 47 vs 48
- 30 sessions ago
- UMH +1
- 47 vs 48
- 90 sessions ago
- UMH +9
- 44 vs 53
The lead changed hands 19 times in this window, most recently on Oct 20 when UMH moved ahead of AVB.
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 UMH
- 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 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.
- 1AVB closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 29 points behind, the largest single contributor to UMH's edge.
- 2AVB generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as Golden Cross Active or MACD Bullish Crossover.
- 3UMH'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
AVB leads on balance| Metric | AVB | UMH |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 1% | 8.8% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -52.4% | 66.7% |
| Gross margin | 52.7% | 51.4% |
| Operating margin | 28.4% | 17.9% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 8.7% | 3.5% |
| Debt to equity | 0.76 | 0.89 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | AVB | UMH |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -1.9% | 1.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -4.4% | -2.7% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 0.3% | -0.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 5% | -1.5% |
| Year to date | 1.5% | -3.3% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -1.5% | 8.2% |
Technicals
AVB has the stronger structure| Metric | AVB | UMH |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 44.5 | 49.5 |
| ADX (14) | 13.2 | 19.8 |
| Price vs 50-day | -2.1% | -4.8% |
| Price vs 200-day | 2.3% | -0.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 19.8% | 17.9% |
Risk
UMH is the more resilient| Metric | AVB | UMH |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.24 | 0.11 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.34 | 0.28 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.5 | 0.44 |
| Max drawdown | -17.5% | -14.8% |
| Current drawdown | -5.8% | -7.7% |
| Annualized volatility | 20.5% | 19.8% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.3% | -1.9% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, AVB or UMH?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, UMH is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 48 against AVB's 47. The edge comes from risk resilience and value. AVB is not without a case — it holds the better quality 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 AVB or UMH the better buy right now?
UMH 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: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor UMH over AVB?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. UMH leads Risk Resilience by 29 points; AVB leads Quality by 8 points; UMH leads Value by 4 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, AVB or UMH?
Analyst price targets imply +7.9% upside for AVB and +18.2% for UMH, so the Street currently favors UMH. 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, AVB or UMH?
UMH is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. UMH on the peer-relative Value factor, by 4 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, AVB 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, AVB or UMH?
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, AVB or UMH?
UMH is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. UMH on Risk Resilience, by 29 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 AVB more profitable than UMH?
AVB leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 52.7% vs 51.4%; operating margin 28.4% vs 17.9%; ttm roe 8.7% vs 3.5%.
Is UMH's lead over AVB getting stronger or weaker?
UMH 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 changed hands 19 times in that window, most recently on 2026-10-20, when UMH moved ahead of AVB.
What would change the AVB vs UMH verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: AVB closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 29 points behind, the largest single contributor to UMH's edge; AVB generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as Golden Cross Active or MACD Bullish Crossover; UMH'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 AVB and UMH?
AVB: No active signals. UMH: 2 bullish / 0 bearish. On UMH it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare AVB 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.