CTRE vs CUBE Stock Comparison
Compare CTRE and CUBE across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between CTRE and CUBE?
CTRE leads the current stock comparison as CareTrust REIT, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
CareTrust REIT, Inc. vs CubeSmart
CTRE leads
CTRE leads by 14 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Risk Resilience, having only recently taken the lead back from CUBE.
Fragile: 4 of 6 evidence groups support CTRE, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
CareTrust REIT, Inc.
CubeSmart
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors CTRE over CUBE, 50 versus 36 as of Sep 11, 2026. CTRE's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and risk resilience. CTRE also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor CTRE today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. CTRE lead: Reversed — CUBE led by 1 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; CTRE now leads by 14.
Compare CareTrust REIT, Inc. and CubeSmart 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 CTRE and CUBE 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.
- Quality65 vs 30CTRE +35
- Risk Resilience67 vs 57CTRE +10
- Momentum33 vs 25CTRE +8
- Value39 vs 41Even
4 of 6 evidence groups favor CTRE. CTRE’s edge is concentrated in quality and risk resilience.
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 -8
New signals
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
Largest factor move: Risk Resilience +1
No new signals fired.
CTRE's lead narrowed by 2 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CTRE and CUBE both carry a full feed there.
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
CTRECTRE on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
CTRECTRE on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
CTRECTRE on the Momentum factor, by 8 points.
Lower downside
CTRECTRE on Risk Resilience, by 10 points.
Analyst upside
CTRECTRE 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 | CTRE | CUBE | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +15% | +8.8% | CTRE has more room |
| Target dispersion | +9% | +18.6% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 7 | 8 | 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 CTRE. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | CTRE | 50 vs 36 |
| Fundamentals | CTREon balance | revenue growth 13% vs 1.6%; EPS growth 5.6% vs 11.1%; TTM ROE 8.5% vs 12.5%; gross margin 78% vs 17.4%; operating margin 69.7% vs 39.8% — CTRE takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | Even | Value 39 vs 41 |
| Technicals | Even | Price vs 50-day -4.9% vs -3.2%; vs 200-day -0.5% vs -0.2% |
| Risk Resilience | CTRE | Risk Resilience 67 vs 57 |
| Analyst expectations | CTRE | Target upside 15% vs 8.8% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of CTRE and CUBE 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 wide at 14 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 CTRE.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10CTRE lead: Reversed — CUBE led by 1 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; CTRE now leads by 14.
- Today
- CTRE +14
- 50 vs 36
- 7 sessions ago
- CTRE +14
- 52 vs 38
- 30 sessions ago
- CUBE +1
- 47 vs 48
- 90 sessions ago
- CTRE +12
- 58 vs 46
The lead changed hands 4 times in this window, most recently on Aug 20 when CTRE moved ahead of CUBE.
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 (4.07%)
- 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 (4.36%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
CTRE 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 down over the latest session (price -0.52%, AIQ -2 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +1.18%, 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.
- 1CUBE closes the Quality gap — currently 35 points behind, the largest single contributor to CTRE's edge.
- 2CUBE's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3CTRE'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
CTRE leads on balance| Metric | CTRE | CUBE |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 13% | 1.6% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 5.6% | 11.1% |
| Gross margin | 78% | 17.4% |
| Operating margin | 69.7% | 39.8% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 8.5% | 12.5% |
| Debt to equity | 0.27 | 1.37 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | CTRE | CUBE |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -1.9% | -1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -0.9% | -5.2% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 2.9% | -6.2% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -2.4% | 0.9% |
| Year to date | 7.4% | 8.4% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 12.6% | -5% |
Technicals
Split| Metric | CTRE | CUBE |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 39.1 | 20.3 |
| ADX (14) | 14.5 | 19 |
| Price vs 50-day | -4.9% | -3.2% |
| Price vs 200-day | -0.5% | -0.2% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 15.7% | 12.8% |
Risk
CTRE is the more resilient| Metric | CTRE | CUBE |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0 | 0.3 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.51 | -0.26 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.75 | -0.43 |
| Max drawdown | -14.3% | -16.5% |
| Current drawdown | -10.6% | -8.1% |
| Annualized volatility | 25.1% | 21.7% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.4% | -2.3% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, CTRE or CUBE?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, CTRE is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 50 against CUBE's 36. The edge comes from quality and risk resilience. 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 CTRE or CUBE the better buy right now?
CTRE carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 4 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor CTRE over CUBE?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. CTRE leads Quality by 35 points; CTRE leads Risk Resilience by 10 points; CTRE leads Momentum by 8 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, CTRE or CUBE?
Analyst price targets imply +15% upside for CTRE and +8.8% for CUBE, so the Street currently favors CTRE. 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, CTRE or CUBE?
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, CTRE or CUBE?
CTRE 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, CTRE or CUBE?
CTRE on the Momentum factor, by 8 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, CTRE or CUBE?
CTRE is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. CTRE on Risk Resilience, by 10 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 CTRE more profitable than CUBE?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 78% vs 17.4%; operating margin 69.7% vs 39.8%; ttm roe 8.5% vs 12.5%. CTRE leads on two measures and CUBE 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 CTRE's lead over CUBE getting stronger or weaker?
CTRE lead: Reversed — CUBE led by 1 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; CTRE now leads by 14. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has changed hands 4 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-20, when CTRE moved ahead of CUBE.
What would change the CTRE vs CUBE verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: CUBE closes the Quality gap — currently 35 points behind, the largest single contributor to CTRE's edge; CUBE's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; CTRE'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 CTRE and CUBE?
CTRE: 1 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. CUBE: 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 CTRE is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On CUBE it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare CTRE and CUBE 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.