BXP vs FRT Stock Comparison
FRT currently leads BXP in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 47 vs 38. The clearest difference is quality.
What is the main difference between BXP and FRT?
FRT leads the current stock comparison as Federal Realty Investment Trust, with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
BXP, Inc. vs Federal Realty Investment Trust
FRT leads
FRT leads by 9 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Risk Resilience, and the lead has widened from 6 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors BXP on target upside.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support FRT, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
BXP, Inc.
Federal Realty Investment Trust
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors FRT over BXP, 47 versus 38 as of Oct 21, 2026. FRT's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and risk resilience. FRT also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors BXP. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor FRT today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. FRT lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 6 to 9 points over 30 sessions.
Compare BXP, Inc. and Federal Realty Investment Trust 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 BXP and FRT 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.
- Quality27 vs 46FRT +19
- Risk Resilience52 vs 68FRT +16
- Momentum35 vs 36Even
- Value46 vs 46Even
3 of 6 evidence groups favor FRT. FRT’s edge is concentrated in quality and 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 +8
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +10
New signals
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
FRT's lead widened by 2 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — BXP and FRT both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
FRT (Federal Realty Investment Trust): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and risk resilience.
BXP (BXP, Inc.): the counter-case, on fundamentals, analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 27.5% against 13.2%.
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
FRTFRT on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
BXPBXP on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
FRTFRT on Risk Resilience, by 16 points.
Analyst upside
BXPBXP on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors FRT, analyst targets favor BXP. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | BXP | FRT | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +21.8% | +18.7% | BXP has more room |
| Target dispersion | +37.8% | +31.1% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | 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 | BXP | FRT |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | -3.04% | 0.98% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $3.920 | $4.220 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $3.360 | $4.430 |
| Years increased | 0 | 4 |
| No cut in window | No (1) | No (1) |
| Cohort rank | not ranked | not ranked |
FRT grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 0.98% a year against BXP's -3.04%.
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 FRT. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | FRT | 38 vs 47 |
| Fundamentals | BXPon balance | revenue growth 2.7% vs -1.6%; EPS growth -32.8% vs -45.6%; TTM ROE 5.8% vs 13.3%; gross margin 46.8% vs 54%; operating margin 35% vs 34.5% — BXP takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | Even | Value 46 vs 46 |
| Technicals | FRT | Price vs 50-day -8.6% vs -5.9%; vs 200-day -5.1% vs -5.5% |
| Risk Resilience | FRT | Risk Resilience 52 vs 68 |
| Analyst expectations | BXP | Target upside 21.8% vs 18.7% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of BXP and FRT 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 9 points.
- 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 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 FRT.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20FRT lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 6 to 9 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- FRT +9
- 38 vs 47
- 7 sessions ago
- FRT +7
- 37 vs 44
- 30 sessions ago
- FRT +6
- 38 vs 44
- 90 sessions ago
- FRT +1
- 45 vs 46
The lead changed hands 6 times in this window, most recently on Aug 31 when FRT moved ahead of BXP.
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 BXP
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (3.06%)
1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only FRT
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (0.34%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: Bollinger Band Squeeze, MACD Bullish Crossover.
FRT 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.
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -0.73%, AIQ +1 points).
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 3 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -0.71%, 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.
- 1BXP closes the Quality gap — currently 19 points behind, the largest single contributor to FRT's edge.
- 2BXP's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3FRT's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 2 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
BXP leads on balance| Metric | BXP | FRT |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 2.7% | -1.6% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -32.8% | -45.6% |
| Gross margin | 46.8% | 54% |
| Operating margin | 35% | 34.5% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 5.8% | 13.3% |
| Debt to equity | 3.17 | 1.44 |
Performance
FRT leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | BXP | FRT |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -1.5% | 0.7% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -8.1% | -3.6% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -12.4% | -14.8% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 1% | -4.1% |
| Year to date | -12.5% | 5.7% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -16.1% | 8.7% |
Technicals
FRT has the stronger structure| Metric | BXP | FRT |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 41.1 | 42.1 |
| ADX (14) | 30.5 | 43.1 |
| Price vs 50-day | -8.6% | -5.9% |
| Price vs 200-day | -5.1% | -5.5% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 27.5% | 13.2% |
Risk
FRT is the more resilient| Metric | BXP | FRT |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.7 | 0.11 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.68 | 0.29 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.99 | 0.46 |
| Max drawdown | -31.2% | -17.6% |
| Current drawdown | -20.4% | -16.2% |
| Annualized volatility | 27.6% | 16.6% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.7% | -1.6% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, BXP or FRT?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, FRT is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 47 against BXP's 38. The edge comes from quality and 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 BXP or FRT the better buy right now?
FRT 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 FRT over BXP?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. FRT leads Quality by 19 points; FRT leads Risk Resilience by 16 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, BXP or FRT?
Analyst price targets imply +21.8% upside for BXP and +18.7% for FRT, so the Street currently favors BXP. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors FRT. 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, BXP or FRT?
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, BXP or FRT?
BXP 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, BXP or FRT?
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, BXP or FRT?
FRT is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. FRT on Risk Resilience, by 16 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 BXP more profitable than FRT?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 46.8% vs 54%; operating margin 35% vs 34.5%; ttm roe 5.8% vs 13.3%. BXP leads on one measure and FRT 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 FRT's lead over BXP getting stronger or weaker?
FRT lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 6 to 9 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 6 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-31, when FRT moved ahead of BXP.
What would change the BXP vs FRT verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: BXP closes the Quality gap — currently 19 points behind, the largest single contributor to FRT's edge; BXP's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; FRT's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 2 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 BXP and FRT?
BXP: 2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. FRT: 1 bullish / 2 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 BXP is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On FRT it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare BXP and FRT 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.