BXP vs FRT Stock Comparison
BXP, Inc. vs Federal Realty Investment Trust
FRT leads
FRT leads by 7 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Risk Resilience, having only recently taken the lead back from BXP.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support FRT, the lead recently changed hands, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
BXP, Inc.
Federal Realty Investment Trust
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors FRT over BXP, 48 versus 41 as of Sep 5, 2026. FRT's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and risk resilience, while BXP holds the stronger momentum profile. FRT also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 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: Reversed — BXP led by 5 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; FRT now leads by 7.
Compare BXP, Inc. and Federal Realty Investment Trust across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
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.
- Quality30%27 vs 46FRT +19
- Risk Resilience15%52 vs 69FRT +17
- Momentum25%47 vs 42BXP +5
- Value30%46 vs 46Even
3 of 6 evidence groups favor FRT. FRT’s edge is concentrated in quality and risk resilience; BXP keeps a meaningful momentum 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 +5
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum -1
No new signals fired.
FRT's lead narrowed by 2 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
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 momentum, fundamentals, technicals — but at materially higher volatility, 28.4% against 12.9%.
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 at 30% each.
Growth
BXPBXP on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
BXPBXP on the Momentum factor, by 5 points.
Lower downside
FRTFRT on Risk Resilience, by 17 points.
Analyst upside
FRTFRT 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 | BXP | FRT | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +5.2% | +8.9% | FRT has more room |
| Target dispersion | +37.9% | +30.6% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 10 | 11 | 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 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 | 41 vs 48 |
| 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 | BXP | Price vs 50-day -1.3% vs -3.3%; vs 200-day 7.3% vs 5.5% |
| Risk Resilience | FRT | Risk Resilience 52 vs 69 |
| Analyst expectations | FRT | Target upside 5.2% vs 8.9% |
✓ 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 7 points.
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (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 FRT.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 22 – Sep 3FRT lead: Reversed — BXP led by 5 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; FRT now leads by 7.
- Today
- FRT +7
- 41 vs 48
- 7 sessions ago
- BXP +2
- 52 vs 50
- 30 sessions ago
- BXP +5
- 51 vs 46
- 90 sessions ago
- FRT +2
- 51 vs 53
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.
1 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (7.88%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
2 bullish / 0 bearish / 2 neutral
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (8.98%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- ATR Contraction - Coiling — neutral, volatility, short horizon (1.41%)
BXP 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 -0.79%, AIQ +1 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -0.06%, AIQ -1 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 MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 3FRT'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
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 |
Technicals
BXP has the stronger structure| Metric | BXP | FRT |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 49.2 | 41.5 |
| ADX (14) | 17.2 | 20.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | -1.3% | -3.3% |
| Price vs 200-day | 7.3% | 5.5% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 28.4% | 12.9% |
Risk
FRT is the more resilient| Metric | BXP | FRT |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.67 | 0.16 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.28 | 0.8 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.41 | 1.24 |
| Max drawdown | -35.4% | -8.7% |
| Current drawdown | -13.6% | -7.8% |
| Annualized volatility | 28% | 16.7% |
| 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 Sep 5, 2026, scoring 48 against BXP's 41. The edge comes from quality and risk resilience. BXP is not without a case — it holds the better momentum 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 BXP or FRT the better buy right now?
FRT carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 5, 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 at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. FRT leads Quality by 19 points; FRT leads Risk Resilience by 17 points; BXP leads Momentum by 5 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 +5.2% upside for BXP and +8.9% for FRT, so the Street currently favors FRT. 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, 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?
BXP on the Momentum factor, by 5 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, 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 17 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 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: Reversed — BXP led by 5 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; FRT now leads by 7. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-22 and 2026-09-03. 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 MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it; FRT'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 BXP and FRT?
BXP: 1 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. FRT: 2 bullish / 0 bearish / 2 neutral. 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 Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare BXP and FRT 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.