COLD vs ESRT Stock Comparison
Compare COLD and ESRT across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between COLD and ESRT?
ESRT leads the current stock comparison as Empire State Realty Trust, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Americold Realty Trust, Inc. vs Empire State Realty Trust, Inc.
ESRT leads
ESRT leads by 2 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Risk Resilience, having only recently taken the lead back from COLD.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support ESRT, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Americold Realty Trust, Inc.
Empire State Realty Trust, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors ESRT over COLD, 37 versus 35 as of Sep 11, 2026. ESRT's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and risk resilience, while COLD holds the stronger momentum profile. ESRT also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor ESRT today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. ESRT lead: Reversed — COLD led by 5 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; ESRT now leads by 2.
Compare Americold Realty Trust, Inc. and Empire State Realty Trust, 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 COLD and ESRT 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.
- Value64 vs 75ESRT +11
- Momentum36 vs 25COLD +11
- Risk Resilience44 vs 53ESRT +9
- Quality1 vs 1Even
3 of 6 evidence groups favor ESRT. ESRT’s edge is concentrated in value and risk resilience; COLD keeps a meaningful momentum edge.
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 +5
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Risk Resilience +1
No new signals fired.
ESRT's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — COLD and ESRT both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
ESRT (Empire State Realty Trust, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and risk resilience.
COLD (Americold Realty Trust, Inc.): the counter-case, on momentum, technicals.
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
ESRTESRT on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
EvenGrowth figures are not covered for both names.
Value
ESRTESRT on the peer-relative Value factor, by 11 points.
Momentum
COLDCOLD on the Momentum factor, by 11 points.
Lower downside
ESRTESRT on Risk Resilience, by 9 points.
Analyst upside
ESRTESRT 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 | COLD | ESRT | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +9.2% | +28.5% | ESRT has more room |
| Target dispersion | +43.9% | +18.2% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 8 | 2 | 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 ESRT. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | Even | 35 vs 37 |
| Fundamentals | Even | revenue growth 5.2% vs 3.5%; EPS growth -24.1% vs -21.8%; gross margin -4.2% vs -22.9%; operating margin 4.5% vs 16.8% |
| Valuation | ESRT | Value 64 vs 75 |
| Technicals | COLD | Price vs 50-day -2.3% vs -15.1%; vs 200-day 5.3% vs -25.5% |
| Risk Resilience | ESRT | Risk Resilience 44 vs 53 |
| Analyst expectations | ESRT | Target upside 9.2% vs 28.5% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of COLD and ESRT 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 narrow at 2 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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 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 ESRT.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10ESRT lead: Reversed — COLD led by 5 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; ESRT now leads by 2.
- Today
- ESRT +2
- 35 vs 37
- 7 sessions ago
- ESRT +2
- 38 vs 40
- 30 sessions ago
- COLD +5
- 43 vs 38
- 90 sessions ago
- Level
- 45 vs 45
The lead changed hands 6 times in this window, most recently on Aug 27 when ESRT moved ahead of COLD.
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 / 2 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (11.57%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (3.53%)
1 bullish / 5 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (12.92%)
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
ESRT 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 +3.54%, AIQ +1 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.94%, 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.
- 1COLD closes the Value gap — currently 11 points behind, the largest single contributor to ESRT's edge.
- 2COLD's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3ESRT's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 5 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
Split| Metric | COLD | ESRT |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 5.2% | 3.5% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -24.1% | -21.8% |
| Gross margin | -4.2% | -22.9% |
| Operating margin | 4.5% | 16.8% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -16.4% | 0.7% |
| Debt to equity | 1.91 | 2.14 |
Performance
COLD leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | COLD | ESRT |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -3.2% | -3.4% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -3.3% | -10.2% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -1.7% | -24.2% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 19.3% | -20.3% |
| Year to date | 9.8% | -32.7% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 4.4% | -45.5% |
Technicals
COLD has the stronger structure| Metric | COLD | ESRT |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 36.1 | 22.2 |
| ADX (14) | 16.6 | 30.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | -2.3% | -15.1% |
| Price vs 200-day | 5.3% | -25.5% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 32% | 30.6% |
Risk
ESRT is the more resilient| Metric | COLD | ESRT |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.62 | 0.33 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.23 | -1.62 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.47 | -2.12 |
| Max drawdown | -26.6% | -46.8% |
| Current drawdown | -13.1% | -46.8% |
| Annualized volatility | 44.7% | 34.9% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.7% | -3.4% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, COLD or ESRT?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, ESRT is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 37 against COLD's 35. The edge comes from value and risk resilience. COLD 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 COLD or ESRT the better buy right now?
ESRT carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor ESRT over COLD?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. ESRT leads Value by 11 points; COLD leads Momentum by 11 points; ESRT leads Risk Resilience by 9 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, COLD or ESRT?
Analyst price targets imply +9.2% upside for COLD and +28.5% for ESRT, so the Street currently favors ESRT. 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, COLD or ESRT?
ESRT is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. ESRT on the peer-relative Value factor, by 11 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, COLD or ESRT?
Growth figures are not covered for both names. 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, COLD or ESRT?
COLD on the Momentum factor, by 11 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, COLD or ESRT?
ESRT is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. ESRT on Risk Resilience, by 9 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 COLD more profitable than ESRT?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin -4.2% vs -22.9%; operating margin 4.5% vs 16.8%; ttm roe -16.4% vs 0.7%. 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 ESRT's lead over COLD getting stronger or weaker?
ESRT lead: Reversed — COLD led by 5 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; ESRT now leads by 2. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has changed hands 6 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-27, when ESRT moved ahead of COLD.
What would change the COLD vs ESRT verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: COLD closes the Value gap — currently 11 points behind, the largest single contributor to ESRT's edge; COLD's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; ESRT's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 5 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 COLD and ESRT?
COLD: 1 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted. ESRT: 1 bullish / 5 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 COLD is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On ESRT it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare COLD and ESRT 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.