CUBE vs DOC Stock Comparison
Compare CUBE and DOC across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between CUBE and DOC?
CUBE leads the current stock comparison as CubeSmart, with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
CubeSmart vs Healthpeak Properties, Inc.
CUBE leads
CUBE leads by 2 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Value, but the lead has narrowed from 8 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support CUBE, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
CubeSmart
Healthpeak Properties, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors CUBE over DOC, 36 versus 34 as of Sep 11, 2026. CUBE's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and value, while DOC holds the stronger risk resilience profile. CUBE also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor CUBE today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. CUBE lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 8 to 2 points over 30 sessions.
Compare CubeSmart and Healthpeak 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 CUBE and DOC 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 Resilience57 vs 76DOC +19
- Quality30 vs 15CUBE +15
- Momentum25 vs 32DOC +7
- Value41 vs 35CUBE +6
3 of 6 evidence groups favor CUBE. CUBE’s edge is concentrated in quality and value; DOC keeps a meaningful risk resilience 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: Risk Resilience +1
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum -10
No new signals fired.
The lead changed hands: CUBE moved ahead of DOC in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CUBE and DOC both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
CUBE (CubeSmart): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and value.
DOC (Healthpeak Properties, Inc.): the counter-case, on risk resilience, 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
CUBECUBE on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
CUBECUBE on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
CUBECUBE on the peer-relative Value factor, by 6 points.
Momentum
DOCDOC on the Momentum factor, by 7 points.
Lower downside
DOCDOC on Risk Resilience, by 19 points.
Analyst upside
CUBECUBE 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 | DOC | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +8.8% | +5.5% | CUBE has more room |
| Target dispersion | +18.6% | +32.7% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 8 | 8 | 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 CUBE. 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 | 36 vs 34 |
| Fundamentals | CUBEon balance | revenue growth 1.6% vs 2.5%; EPS growth 11.1% vs -71.4%; TTM ROE 12.5% vs 3.3%; gross margin 17.4% vs 2.5%; operating margin 39.8% vs 17.6% — CUBE takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | CUBE | Value 41 vs 35 |
| Technicals | DOC | Price vs 50-day -3.2% vs -5.5%; vs 200-day -0.2% vs 9.2% |
| Risk Resilience | DOC | Risk Resilience 57 vs 76 |
| Analyst expectations | CUBE | Target upside 8.8% vs 5.5% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of CUBE and DOC 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 leader's advantage has been narrowing. (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 CUBE.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10CUBE lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 8 to 2 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- CUBE +2
- 36 vs 34
- 7 sessions ago
- Level
- 38 vs 38
- 30 sessions ago
- CUBE +8
- 48 vs 40
- 90 sessions ago
- DOC +4
- 46 vs 50
The lead changed hands 4 times in this window, most recently on Sep 10 when CUBE moved ahead of DOC.
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
1 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (15.09%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
CUBE 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 +1.18%, AIQ 0 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved down over the latest session (price -0.34%, AIQ -3 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.
- 1DOC closes the Quality gap — currently 15 points behind, the largest single contributor to CUBE's edge.
- 2DOC's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 3CUBE's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 6 points over 30 sessions, and a further 2-point move would eliminate CUBE'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
CUBE leads on balance| Metric | CUBE | DOC |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 1.6% | 2.5% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 11.1% | -71.4% |
| Gross margin | 17.4% | 2.5% |
| Operating margin | 39.8% | 17.6% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 12.5% | 3.3% |
| Debt to equity | 1.37 | 1.32 |
Performance
DOC leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | CUBE | DOC |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -1% | -3.1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -5.2% | -1.4% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -6.2% | -0.5% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 0.9% | 19.3% |
| Year to date | 8.4% | 26.7% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -5% | 11.3% |
Technicals
DOC has the stronger structure| Metric | CUBE | DOC |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 20.3 | 30.9 |
| ADX (14) | 19 | 16.7 |
| Price vs 50-day | -3.2% | -5.5% |
| Price vs 200-day | -0.2% | 9.2% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 12.8% | 16.7% |
Risk
DOC is the more resilient| Metric | CUBE | DOC |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.3 | 0.42 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.26 | 0.42 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.43 | 0.81 |
| Max drawdown | -16.5% | -18.5% |
| Current drawdown | -8.1% | -10.7% |
| Annualized volatility | 21.7% | 28.9% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.3% | -2.3% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, CUBE or DOC?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, CUBE is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 36 against DOC's 34. The edge comes from quality and value. DOC 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 CUBE or DOC the better buy right now?
CUBE 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 CUBE over DOC?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. DOC leads Risk Resilience by 19 points; CUBE leads Quality by 15 points; DOC leads Momentum by 7 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, CUBE or DOC?
Analyst price targets imply +8.8% upside for CUBE and +5.5% for DOC, so the Street currently favors CUBE. 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, CUBE or DOC?
CUBE is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. CUBE on the peer-relative Value factor, by 6 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 DOC?
CUBE 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, CUBE or DOC?
DOC 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 DOC?
DOC is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. DOC on Risk Resilience, by 19 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 DOC?
CUBE leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 17.4% vs 2.5%; operating margin 39.8% vs 17.6%; ttm roe 12.5% vs 3.3%.
Is CUBE's lead over DOC getting stronger or weaker?
CUBE lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 8 to 2 points over 30 sessions. 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 2026-09-10, when CUBE moved ahead of DOC.
What would change the CUBE vs DOC verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: DOC closes the Quality gap — currently 15 points behind, the largest single contributor to CUBE's edge; DOC's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it; CUBE's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 6 points over 30 sessions, and a further 2-point move would eliminate CUBE's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about CUBE and DOC?
CUBE: 2 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. DOC: 1 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 CUBE is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On DOC it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare CUBE and DOC 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.