BRT vs CSR Stock Comparison
BRT Apartments Corp. vs Centerspace
BRT leads
BRT leads by 5 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Value.
Competitive: 4 of 6 evidence groups support BRT, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
BRT Apartments Corp.
Centerspace
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors BRT over CSR, 43 versus 38 as of Sep 5, 2026. BRT's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and value, while CSR holds the stronger risk resilience profile. BRT also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor BRT today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 5 points. BRT lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 5 points over 30 sessions.
Compare BRT Apartments Corp. and Centerspace across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Compare BRT and CSR 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.
- Momentum25%53 vs 25BRT +28
- Risk Resilience15%48 vs 70CSR +22
- Value30%61 vs 42BRT +19
- Quality30%13 vs 29CSR +16
4 of 6 evidence groups favor BRT. BRT’s edge is concentrated in momentum and value; CSR keeps a meaningful risk resilience edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-03, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-02.
Largest factor move: Momentum +8
No new signals fired.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
BRT's lead widened by 2 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — BRT and CSR both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
BRT (BRT Apartments Corp.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and value.
CSR (Centerspace): the counter-case, on risk resilience, quality, 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
BRTBRT on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
CSRCSR on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
BRTBRT on the peer-relative Value factor, by 19 points.
Momentum
BRTBRT on the Momentum factor, by 28 points.
Lower downside
CSRCSR on Risk Resilience, by 22 points.
Analyst upside
BRTBRT 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 | BRT | CSR | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +46.3% | +19.4% | BRT has more room |
| Target dispersion | 0% | +19% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 1 | 4 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor BRT. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | BRT | 43 vs 38 |
| Fundamentals | CSRon balance | revenue growth -0.5% vs 1.1%; EPS growth -35.7% vs 92.1%; TTM ROE -7.5% vs 3%; gross margin 28% vs 38.7%; operating margin 12.8% vs 8.6% — CSR takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | BRT | Value 61 vs 42 |
| Technicals | BRT | Price vs 50-day -2.8% vs -4.2%; vs 200-day 0.7% vs -14.9% |
| Risk Resilience | CSR | Risk Resilience 48 vs 70 |
| Analyst expectations | BRT | Target upside 46.3% vs 19.4% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of BRT and CSR and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
- The AIQ gap is narrow at 5 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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 BRT.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 22 – Sep 3BRT lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 5 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- BRT +5
- 43 vs 38
- 7 sessions ago
- BRT +14
- 53 vs 39
- 30 sessions ago
- BRT +6
- 47 vs 41
- 90 sessions ago
- BRT +20
- 59 vs 39
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
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (1.34%)
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
1 bullish / 4 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (11.50%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
CSR 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 2 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -2.18%, AIQ +2 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.97%, AIQ 0 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.
- 1CSR closes the Momentum gap — currently 28 points behind, the largest single contributor to BRT's edge.
- 2CSR's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3BRT's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict.
- 4A regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, 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
CSR leads on balance| Metric | BRT | CSR |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -0.5% | 1.1% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -35.7% | 92.1% |
| Gross margin | 28% | 38.7% |
| Operating margin | 12.8% | 8.6% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -7.5% | 3% |
| Debt to equity | 3.17 | 1.44 |
Technicals
BRT has the stronger structure| Metric | BRT | CSR |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 56 | 26 |
| ADX (14) | 11 | 20.3 |
| Price vs 50-day | -2.8% | -4.2% |
| Price vs 200-day | 0.7% | -14.9% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 22.1% | 19.9% |
Risk
CSR is the more resilient| Metric | BRT | CSR |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.19 | 0.05 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.33 | -0.44 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.5 | -0.63 |
| Max drawdown | -20.2% | -23.9% |
| Current drawdown | -11.4% | -23.9% |
| Annualized volatility | 22.1% | 27% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.4% | -2.4% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, BRT or CSR?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, BRT is the stronger of the two as of Sep 5, 2026, scoring 43 against CSR's 38. The edge comes from momentum and value. CSR 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 BRT or CSR the better buy right now?
BRT carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 5, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 4 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Competitive rating means the two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
Why does the AIQ Score favor BRT over CSR?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. BRT leads Momentum by 28 points; CSR leads Risk Resilience by 22 points; BRT leads Value by 19 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, BRT or CSR?
Analyst price targets imply +46.3% upside for BRT and +19.4% for CSR, so the Street currently favors BRT. 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, BRT or CSR?
BRT is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. BRT on the peer-relative Value factor, by 19 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, BRT or CSR?
CSR 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, BRT or CSR?
BRT on the Momentum factor, by 28 points. Momentum carries 25% of 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, BRT or CSR?
CSR is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. CSR on Risk Resilience, by 22 points. The Risk Resilience factor weights 15% of the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is BRT more profitable than CSR?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 28% vs 38.7%; operating margin 12.8% vs 8.6%; ttm roe -7.5% vs 3%. BRT leads on one measure and CSR on two measures, 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 BRT's lead over CSR getting stronger or weaker?
BRT lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 5 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-22 and 2026-09-03. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the BRT vs CSR verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: CSR closes the Momentum gap — currently 28 points behind, the largest single contributor to BRT's edge; CSR's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; BRT's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict; a regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
What do the current signals say about BRT and CSR?
BRT: 2 bullish / 0 bearish. CSR: 1 bullish / 4 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 BRT is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On CSR it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare BRT and CSR with others
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality (30%), Value (30%), Momentum (25%) and Risk (15%). 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.