CPT vs ELS Stock Comparison
Compare CPT and ELS across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between CPT and ELS?
ELS leads the current stock comparison as Equity LifeStyle Properties, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Camden Property Trust vs Equity LifeStyle Properties, Inc.
ELS leads
ELS leads by 3 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Value.
Fragile: 2 of 6 evidence groups support ELS, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Camden Property Trust
Equity LifeStyle Properties, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors ELS over CPT, 41 versus 38 as of Sep 6, 2026. ELS's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and value, while CPT holds the stronger risk resilience profile. ELS also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor ELS today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 3 points. ELS lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 3 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Camden Property Trust and Equity LifeStyle Properties, 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 CPT and ELS 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 Resilience15%72 vs 52CPT +20
- Quality30%29 vs 44ELS +15
- Value30%36 vs 47ELS +11
- Momentum25%30 vs 24CPT +6
2 of 6 evidence groups favor ELS. ELS’s edge is concentrated in quality and value; CPT keeps a meaningful risk resilience edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-05, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-04.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
ELS's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CPT and ELS both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
ELS (Equity LifeStyle Properties, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and value.
CPT (Camden Property Trust): the counter-case, on risk resilience, momentum.
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
ELSELS on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
ELSELS on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
ELSELS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 11 points.
Momentum
CPTCPT on the Momentum factor, by 6 points.
Lower downside
CPTCPT on Risk Resilience, by 20 points.
Analyst upside
EvenAnalyst targets are level or not covered for both names.
AIQ vs Wall Street
Where the systematic read and the analyst consensus line up — and where they do not.
| Measure | CPT | ELS | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +7.2% | +6.4% | Level |
| Target dispersion | +24.9% | +19.6% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 12 | 5 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor ELS. 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 | 38 vs 41 |
| Fundamentals | ELSon balance | revenue growth 1.2% vs 0%; EPS growth -55% vs -10.7%; TTM ROE 7.8% vs 22.9%; gross margin 22.3% vs 43.3%; operating margin 17.8% vs 35.7% — ELS takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | ELS | Value 36 vs 47 |
| Technicals | Even | Price vs 50-day -5% vs -3.7%; vs 200-day -1.5% vs -2.2% |
| Risk Resilience | CPT | Risk Resilience 72 vs 52 |
| Analyst expectations | Even | Target upside 7.2% vs 6.4% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of CPT and ELS 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 3 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (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 ELS.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 24 – Sep 5ELS lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 3 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- ELS +3
- 38 vs 41
- 7 sessions ago
- CPT +1
- 43 vs 42
- 30 sessions ago
- ELS +3
- 45 vs 48
- 90 sessions ago
- CPT +1
- 51 vs 50
The lead changed hands 7 times in this window, most recently on Sep 2 when ELS moved ahead of CPT.
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 (3.64%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
2 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (1.49%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
ELS 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 +0.09%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -0.3%, 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.
- 1CPT closes the Quality gap — currently 15 points behind, the largest single contributor to ELS's edge.
- 2CPT's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 3ELS's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 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
ELS leads on balance| Metric | CPT | ELS |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 1.2% | 0% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -55% | -10.7% |
| Gross margin | 22.3% | 43.3% |
| Operating margin | 17.8% | 35.7% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 7.8% | 22.9% |
| Debt to equity | 1.28 | 1.88 |
Performance
ELS leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | CPT | ELS |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -0.6% | -2.1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -5.6% | -4.2% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -6.1% | 0% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -0.8% | -7.3% |
| Year to date | -4% | 3% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -3.4% | 3.7% |
Technicals
Split| Metric | CPT | ELS |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 36.7 | 27.7 |
| ADX (14) | 22 | 15.2 |
| Price vs 50-day | -5% | -3.7% |
| Price vs 200-day | -1.5% | -2.2% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 17% | 13.5% |
Risk
CPT is the more resilient| Metric | CPT | ELS |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.06 | -0.21 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.32 | 0.01 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.5 | 0.01 |
| Max drawdown | -13.1% | -11.1% |
| Current drawdown | -10.1% | -8.7% |
| Annualized volatility | 19.6% | 17.7% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.1% | -1.7% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, CPT or ELS?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, ELS is the stronger of the two as of Sep 6, 2026, scoring 41 against CPT's 38. The edge comes from quality and value. CPT is not without a case — it holds the better risk resilience 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 CPT or ELS the better buy right now?
ELS carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 6, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 3 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor ELS over CPT?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. CPT leads Risk Resilience by 20 points; ELS leads Quality by 15 points; ELS leads Value by 11 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, CPT or ELS?
Analyst price targets imply +7.2% upside for CPT and +6.4% for ELS. 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, CPT or ELS?
ELS is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. ELS 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, CPT or ELS?
ELS 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, CPT or ELS?
CPT on the Momentum factor, by 6 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, CPT or ELS?
CPT is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. CPT on Risk Resilience, by 20 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 CPT more profitable than ELS?
ELS leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 22.3% vs 43.3%; operating margin 17.8% vs 35.7%; ttm roe 7.8% vs 22.9%.
Is ELS's lead over CPT getting stronger or weaker?
ELS lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 3 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-24 and 2026-09-05. The lead has changed hands 7 times in that window, most recently on 2026-09-02, when ELS moved ahead of CPT.
What would change the CPT vs ELS verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: CPT closes the Quality gap — currently 15 points behind, the largest single contributor to ELS's edge; CPT's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it; ELS's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; 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 CPT and ELS?
CPT: 1 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. ELS: 2 bullish / 1 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 CPT is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On ELS it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare CPT and ELS 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.