CUBE vs DHC Stock Comparison
Compare CUBE and DHC across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between CUBE and DHC?
CUBE and DHC are close on the current AIQ evidence, so the better fit depends more on objective, risk tolerance and valuation preference than on a single headline score.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
CubeSmart vs Diversified Healthcare Trust
CUBE and DHC are effectively level
CUBE and DHC are effectively level on the AIQ Score; the factor table below shows where each one holds its advantage.
CubeSmart
Diversified Healthcare Trust
The Algovestiq AIQ Score does not currently separate CUBE and DHC as of Sep 11, 2026. Both names are scored on the same 0–100 scale across Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience, and the factor table below shows where each one holds its advantage.
Compare CubeSmart and Diversified Healthcare Trust 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 CUBE and DHC 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.
- Value41 vs 65DHC +24
- Quality30 vs 7CUBE +23
- Risk Resilience57 vs 44CUBE +13
- Momentum25 vs 32DHC +7
Neither name separates cleanly on the covered dimensions.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-10, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-09.
Largest factor move: Risk Resilience +1
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Risk Resilience +1
No new signals fired.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CUBE and DHC 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
EvenNeither separates on the overall score.
Growth
EvenGrowth figures are not covered for both names.
Value
DHCDHC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 24 points.
Momentum
DHCDHC on the Momentum factor, by 7 points.
Lower downside
CUBECUBE on Risk Resilience, by 13 points.
Analyst upside
DHCDHC 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 | CUBE | DHC | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +8.8% | +26.7% | DHC has more room |
| Target dispersion | +18.6% | +26.3% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | 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
How each independent group of evidence reads the pair.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | Even | 36 vs 36 |
| Fundamentals | CUBE | revenue growth 1.6% vs -0.3%; EPS growth 11.1% vs 11.1%; TTM ROE 12.5% vs -16.2%; gross margin 17.4% vs -5.2%; operating margin 39.8% vs -2.1% |
| Valuation | DHC | Value 41 vs 65 |
| Technicals | CUBE | Price vs 50-day -3.2% vs -12.2%; vs 200-day -0.2% vs 3.8% |
| Risk Resilience | CUBE | Risk Resilience 57 vs 44 |
| Analyst expectations | DHC | Target upside 8.8% vs 26.7% |
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 0 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 1 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10CUBE lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 13 to 0 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- Level
- 36 vs 36
- 7 sessions ago
- CUBE +2
- 38 vs 36
- 30 sessions ago
- CUBE +13
- 48 vs 35
- 90 sessions ago
- CUBE +1
- 46 vs 45
The lead changed hands once in this window, most recently on Jul 8 when DHC 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.
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
2 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (17.67%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
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 +1.18%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -0.53%, AIQ 0 points).
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
CUBE leads on balance| Metric | CUBE | DHC |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 1.6% | -0.3% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 11.1% | 11.1% |
| Gross margin | 17.4% | -5.2% |
| Operating margin | 39.8% | -2.1% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 12.5% | -16.2% |
| Debt to equity | 1.37 | 1.53 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | CUBE | DHC |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -1% | -1.4% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -5.2% | -9.5% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -6.2% | -11.8% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 0.9% | 2.7% |
| Year to date | 8.4% | 55.5% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -5% | 79.4% |
Technicals
CUBE has the stronger structure| Metric | CUBE | DHC |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 20.3 | 26.5 |
| ADX (14) | 19 | 28.4 |
| Price vs 50-day | -3.2% | -12.2% |
| Price vs 200-day | -0.2% | 3.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 12.8% | 24.8% |
Risk
CUBE is the more resilient| Metric | CUBE | DHC |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.3 | 0.58 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.26 | 1.56 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.43 | 2.73 |
| Max drawdown | -16.5% | -22.1% |
| Current drawdown | -8.1% | -21.8% |
| Annualized volatility | 21.7% | 38.7% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.3% | -3.8% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which has more analyst upside, CUBE or DHC?
Analyst price targets imply +8.8% upside for CUBE and +26.7% for DHC, so the Street currently favors DHC. Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions, and dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Which is better value, CUBE or DHC?
DHC is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. DHC 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, CUBE or DHC?
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, CUBE or DHC?
DHC on the Momentum factor, by 7 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, CUBE or DHC?
CUBE is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. CUBE on Risk Resilience, by 13 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 CUBE more profitable than DHC?
CUBE leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 17.4% vs -5.2%; operating margin 39.8% vs -2.1%; ttm roe 12.5% vs -16.2%.
What do the current signals say about CUBE and DHC?
CUBE: 2 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. DHC: 2 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 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 CUBE is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On DHC it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare CUBE and DHC 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.