CLDT vs VTR Stock Comparison
CLDT currently leads VTR in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 51 vs 35. The clearest difference is momentum.
What is the main difference between CLDT and VTR?
CLDT leads the current stock comparison as Chatham Lodging Trust, with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Chatham Lodging Trust vs Ventas, Inc.
CLDT leads
CLDT leads by 16 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Quality, but the lead has narrowed from 21 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors VTR on target upside.
Stable: 5 of 6 evidence groups support CLDT, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Chatham Lodging Trust
Ventas, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors CLDT over VTR, 51 versus 35 as of Oct 21, 2026. CLDT's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and quality. CLDT also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors VTR. 5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor CLDT today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability: the leader's advantage has been narrowing. CLDT lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 21 to 16 points over 30 sessions. CLDT leads on all four AIQ factor dimensions. Value is itself one of those four, so a sweep is not explained by valuation alone — it deserves additional scrutiny for unmodeled catalysts, expectations or event risk.
Compare Chatham Lodging Trust and Ventas, 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 CLDT and VTR 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.
- Momentum78 vs 54CLDT +24
- Quality35 vs 18CLDT +17
- Value41 vs 29CLDT +12
- Risk Resilience55 vs 50CLDT +5
5 of 6 evidence groups favor CLDT. CLDT’s edge is concentrated in momentum and quality.
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 +4
New signals
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum +17
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 2 active signals are unchanged.
CLDT's lead narrowed by 3 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CLDT and VTR both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
CLDT (Chatham Lodging Trust): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and quality.
VTR (Ventas, Inc.): the counter-case, on analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 23.4% against 18.2%.
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
CLDTCLDT on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
CLDTCLDT on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
CLDTCLDT on the peer-relative Value factor, by 12 points.
Momentum
CLDTCLDT on the Momentum factor, by 24 points.
Lower downside
CLDTCLDT on Risk Resilience, by 5 points.
Analyst upside
VTRVTR on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors CLDT, analyst targets favor VTR. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | CLDT | VTR | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -5.2% | +15.8% | VTR has more room |
| Target dispersion | +25.8% | +22.2% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 3 | 14 | 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 | CLDT | VTR |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 10.35% | -2.17% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $0.220 | $2.143 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $0.360 | $1.920 |
| Years increased | — | 1 |
| No cut in window | — | No (1) |
| Cohort rank | not ranked | not ranked |
CLDT grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 10.35% a year against VTR's -2.17%.
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
5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor CLDT. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | CLDT | 51 vs 35 |
| Fundamentals | CLDTon balance | revenue growth 30.1% vs 4.4%; EPS growth 239% vs 16.7%; TTM ROE 1.6% vs 2%; gross margin 28.5% vs -2.6%; operating margin 10.2% vs 12.9% — CLDT takes 3 of 4 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | CLDT | Value 41 vs 29 |
| Technicals | CLDT | Price vs 50-day 7.5% vs -3%; vs 200-day 33.6% vs 0.4% |
| Risk Resilience | CLDT | Risk Resilience 55 vs 50 |
| Analyst expectations | VTR | Target upside -5.2% vs 15.8% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of CLDT and VTR and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion rests on a wide gap and broad agreement. It is unlikely to turn on a single session.
- The AIQ gap is wide at 16 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 5 of 6 covered evidence groups point the same way. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (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 CLDT.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20CLDT lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 21 to 16 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- CLDT +16
- 51 vs 35
- 7 sessions ago
- CLDT +20
- 51 vs 31
- 30 sessions ago
- CLDT +21
- 51 vs 30
- 90 sessions ago
- CLDT +7
- 40 vs 33
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.
5 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only CLDT
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (2.9%)
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
2 bullish / 0 bearish
No signal that the other name lacks.
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, MACD Bullish Crossover.
CLDT 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 and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +1.06%, AIQ +1 points).
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 4 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -1.28%, AIQ +4 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.
- 1VTR closes the Momentum gap — currently 24 points behind, the largest single contributor to CLDT's edge.
- 2VTR generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish or Uptrend Structure Active.
- 3CLDT's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 5 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 5 points over 30 sessions, and a further 16-point move would eliminate CLDT's advantage entirely.
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 | VTR |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 30.1% | 4.4% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 239% | 16.7% |
| Gross margin | 28.5% | -2.6% |
| Operating margin | 10.2% | 12.9% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 1.6% | 2% |
| Debt to equity | 0.6 | 0.93 |
Performance
CLDT leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | CLDT | VTR |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 1.9% | 3.1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 7.1% | -0.4% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 4.5% | -11% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 63.6% | 5.3% |
| Year to date | 105.5% | 11.8% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 124.4% | 24.4% |
Technicals
CLDT has the stronger structure| Metric | CLDT | VTR |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 72 | 54.7 |
| ADX (14) | 24.3 | 22.2 |
| Price vs 50-day | 7.5% | -3% |
| Price vs 200-day | 33.6% | 0.4% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 18.2% | 23.4% |
Risk
CLDT is the more resilient| Metric | CLDT | VTR |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.54 | -0.24 |
| Sharpe ratio | 2.68 | 0.84 |
| Sortino ratio | 5.71 | 1.15 |
| Max drawdown | -10.2% | -20.4% |
| Current drawdown | 0% | -14% |
| Annualized volatility | 30.6% | 22.7% |
| 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 VTR?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, CLDT is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 51 against VTR's 35. The edge comes from momentum and quality. 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 VTR the better buy right now?
CLDT carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 2026, and the comparison is rated Stable — 5 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Stable rating means the gap is wide and the evidence is broad, so the conclusion is unlikely to turn on a single session.
Why does the AIQ Score favor CLDT over VTR?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. CLDT leads Momentum by 24 points; CLDT leads Quality by 17 points; CLDT leads Value by 12 points. CLDT leads on all four AIQ factor dimensions. Value is itself one of those four, so the sweep is not explained by VTR simply being cheaper — it warrants extra scrutiny for unmodeled catalysts, forward expectations or event risk the factors do not capture.
Which has more analyst upside, CLDT or VTR?
Analyst price targets imply -5.2% upside for CLDT and +15.8% for VTR, so the Street currently favors VTR. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors CLDT. 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, CLDT or VTR?
CLDT is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. CLDT on the peer-relative Value factor, by 12 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 VTR?
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 VTR?
CLDT on the Momentum factor, by 24 points. 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 VTR?
CLDT is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. CLDT on Risk Resilience, by 5 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 VTR?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 28.5% vs -2.6%; operating margin 10.2% vs 12.9%; ttm roe 1.6% vs 2%. Each name leads 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 CLDT's lead over VTR getting stronger or weaker?
CLDT lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 21 to 16 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the CLDT vs VTR verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: VTR closes the Momentum gap — currently 24 points behind, the largest single contributor to CLDT's edge; VTR generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish or Uptrend Structure Active; CLDT's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 5 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 5 points over 30 sessions, and a further 16-point move would eliminate CLDT's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about CLDT and VTR?
CLDT: 5 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. VTR: 2 bullish / 0 bearish. 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 VTR it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare CLDT and VTR 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.