CLDT vs SHO Stock Comparison
Compare CLDT and SHO across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between CLDT and SHO?
SHO leads the current stock comparison as Sunstone Hotel Investors, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from risk resilience and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Chatham Lodging Trust vs Sunstone Hotel Investors, Inc.
SHO leads
SHO leads by 10 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Value, and the lead has widened from 2 points over 30 sessions.
Competitive: 4 of 6 evidence groups support SHO, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Chatham Lodging Trust
Sunstone Hotel Investors, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors SHO over CLDT, 51 versus 41 as of Sep 11, 2026. SHO's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and value. SHO also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor SHO today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. SHO lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 2 to 10 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Chatham Lodging Trust and Sunstone Hotel Investors, Inc. across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Performance over time
Price-return comparison using available daily close history.
Total return comparison
Growth of $10,000
Based on available close-price history. Distribution reinvestment is not added unless already reflected in the source series.
Compare CLDT and SHO 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 Resilience52 vs 79SHO +27
- Value41 vs 65SHO +24
- Momentum41 vs 38Even
- Quality35 vs 34Even
4 of 6 evidence groups favor SHO. SHO’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and value.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-10, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-09.
Largest factor move: Momentum -1
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum -5
No new signals fired.
SHO's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CLDT and SHO both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
SHO (Sunstone Hotel Investors, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and value.
CLDT (Chatham Lodging Trust): the counter-case, on fundamentals, technicals — but at materially higher volatility, 27.6% against 16%.
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
SHOSHO on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
CLDTCLDT on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
SHOSHO on the peer-relative Value factor, by 24 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
SHOSHO on Risk Resilience, by 27 points.
Analyst upside
SHOSHO 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 | CLDT | SHO | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -0.5% | +18.4% | SHO has more room |
| Target dispersion | +31.2% | 0% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 3 | 1 | 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 SHO. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | SHO | 41 vs 51 |
| Fundamentals | CLDTon balance | revenue growth 30.1% vs 6.7%; EPS growth 239% vs 66.1%; TTM ROE 1.6% vs 2.8%; gross margin 28.5% vs 20.7%; operating margin 10.2% vs 9% — CLDT takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | SHO | Value 41 vs 65 |
| Technicals | CLDT | Price vs 50-day -1.9% vs -2.8%; vs 200-day 33.7% vs 8.5% |
| Risk Resilience | SHO | Risk Resilience 52 vs 79 |
| Analyst expectations | SHO | Target upside -0.5% vs 18.4% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of CLDT and SHO 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 moderate at 10 points.
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (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 SHO.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10SHO lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 2 to 10 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- SHO +10
- 41 vs 51
- 7 sessions ago
- SHO +12
- 43 vs 55
- 30 sessions ago
- SHO +2
- 46 vs 48
- 90 sessions ago
- SHO +6
- 46 vs 52
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.
1 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (35.79%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
1 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (11.74%)
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
SHO 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.
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -0.39%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.09%, 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.
- 1CLDT closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 27 points behind, the largest single contributor to SHO's edge.
- 2CLDT's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 3SHO's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 1 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
CLDT leads on balance| Metric | CLDT | SHO |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 30.1% | 6.7% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 239% | 66.1% |
| Gross margin | 28.5% | 20.7% |
| Operating margin | 10.2% | 9% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 1.6% | 2.8% |
| Debt to equity | 0.6 | 0.52 |
Performance
CLDT leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | CLDT | SHO |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -1.4% | -0.3% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 2.2% | 1.6% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 6% | -4% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 65.4% | 18.6% |
| Year to date | 90.2% | 22.7% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 76.9% | 16.3% |
Technicals
CLDT has the stronger structure| Metric | CLDT | SHO |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 41.5 | 37.2 |
| ADX (14) | 14.1 | 29.3 |
| Price vs 50-day | -1.9% | -2.8% |
| Price vs 200-day | 33.7% | 8.5% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 27.6% | 16% |
Risk
SHO is the more resilient| Metric | CLDT | SHO |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.58 | 0.6 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.96 | 0.62 |
| Sortino ratio | 4.27 | 1.02 |
| Max drawdown | -13.8% | -12% |
| Current drawdown | -6.1% | -8% |
| Annualized volatility | 31% | 23.5% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.3% | -2.2% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, CLDT or SHO?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, SHO is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 51 against CLDT's 41. The edge comes from risk resilience and value. 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 CLDT or SHO the better buy right now?
SHO carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 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 SHO over CLDT?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. SHO leads Risk Resilience by 27 points; SHO leads Value by 24 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, CLDT or SHO?
Analyst price targets imply -0.5% upside for CLDT and +18.4% for SHO, so the Street currently favors SHO. 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, CLDT or SHO?
SHO is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. SHO on the peer-relative Value factor, by 24 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, CLDT or SHO?
CLDT 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, CLDT or SHO?
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, CLDT or SHO?
SHO is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. SHO on Risk Resilience, by 27 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 CLDT more profitable than SHO?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 28.5% vs 20.7%; operating margin 10.2% vs 9%; ttm roe 1.6% vs 2.8%. CLDT leads on two measures and SHO on one measure, 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 SHO's lead over CLDT getting stronger or weaker?
SHO lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 2 to 10 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the CLDT vs SHO verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: CLDT closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 27 points behind, the largest single contributor to SHO's edge; CLDT's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it; SHO's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 1 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 CLDT and SHO?
CLDT: 1 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. SHO: 1 bullish / 1 bearish, 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 CLDT is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On SHO it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare CLDT and SHO 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.