CUBE vs JPM Stock Comparison
JPM currently leads CUBE in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 53 vs 49. The clearest difference is quality, while CUBE has the stronger momentum profile.
What is the main difference between CUBE and JPM?
JPM leads the current stock comparison as JPMorgan Chase & Co., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
CubeSmart vs JPMorgan Chase & Co.
JPM leads
JPM leads by 4 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Risk Resilience, but the lead has narrowed from 8 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support JPM, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
CubeSmart
JPMorgan Chase & Co.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors JPM over CUBE, 53 versus 49 as of Oct 31, 2026. JPM's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and risk resilience, while CUBE holds the stronger momentum profile. JPM also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor JPM today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 4 points. JPM lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 8 to 4 points over 30 sessions.
Compare CubeSmart and JPMorgan Chase & Co. across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Performance over time
Total return with distributions reinvested, from daily closes.
Total return comparison
Growth of $10,000, distributions reinvested
Split-adjusted closes; each distribution is reinvested at the close on its ex-dividend date. Taxes and trading costs are not modeled.
Compare CUBE and JPM 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.
- Momentum79 vs 61CUBE +18
- Quality30 vs 46JPM +16
- Risk Resilience54 vs 69JPM +15
- Value42 vs 44Even
3 of 6 evidence groups favor JPM. JPM’s edge is concentrated in quality and risk resilience; CUBE keeps a meaningful momentum edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-28, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-27.
Largest factor move: Momentum -1
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +2
New signals
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
JPM's lead widened by 2 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CUBE and JPM both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
JPM (JPMorgan Chase & Co.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and risk resilience.
CUBE (CubeSmart): the counter-case, on momentum, fundamentals, technicals — but at materially higher volatility, 19.4% against 13%.
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
JPMJPM on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
CUBECUBE on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
CUBECUBE on the Momentum factor, by 18 points.
Lower downside
JPMJPM on Risk Resilience, by 15 points.
Analyst upside
JPMJPM 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 | JPM | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +1.4% | +10.7% | JPM has more room |
| Target dispersion | +20.8% | +32.2% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 8 | 11 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | CUBE | JPM |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 9.36% | 9.04% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $1.330 | $3.600 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $2.080 | $5.550 |
| Years increased | 4 | 5 |
| No cut in window | No (1) | Yes |
| Cohort rank | not ranked | #120 |
CUBE grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 9.36% a year against JPM's 9.04%. JPM never reduced its regular dividend in the window; CUBE did in 1 year. They are ranked in different cohorts — REITs and US dividend-paying corporations — so their ranks are not comparable with each other.
Yield and payout ratio shown elsewhere on this page are current values, not part of the study window.
Split-adjusted regular dividends per share, 2020–2025, excluding special dividends. Research as of Sep 19, 2026.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor JPM. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | JPM | 49 vs 53 |
| Fundamentals | CUBEon balance | revenue growth 1.6% vs -7.6%; EPS growth 11.1% vs -27.6%; TTM ROE 12.5% vs 17.9%; gross margin 17.4% vs 63.2%; operating margin 39.8% vs 28.2% — CUBE takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | Even | Value 42 vs 44 |
| Technicals | CUBE | Price vs 50-day 9.2% vs -2%; vs 200-day 2% vs 5.2% |
| Risk Resilience | JPM | Risk Resilience 54 vs 69 |
| Analyst expectations | JPM | Target upside 1.4% vs 10.7% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of CUBE and JPM 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 4 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 JPM.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 29 – Oct 28JPM lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 8 to 4 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- JPM +4
- 49 vs 53
- 7 sessions ago
- JPM +1
- 49 vs 50
- 30 sessions ago
- JPM +8
- 36 vs 44
- 90 sessions ago
- JPM +12
- 40 vs 52
The lead has not changed hands in this window.
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 / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only CUBE
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (1.07%)
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
2 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
Only JPM
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (6.57%)
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
Both carry 1 more signal that do not separate them: MACD Bullish Crossover.
JPM 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 is up while the AIQ Score moved down 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +4.04%, AIQ -1 points).
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -1.9%, AIQ +1 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 16 points behind, the largest single contributor to JPM's edge.
- 2CUBE's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3JPM'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 4 points over 30 sessions, and a further 4-point move would eliminate JPM'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 | JPM |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 1.6% | -7.6% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 11.1% | -27.6% |
| Gross margin | 17.4% | 63.2% |
| Operating margin | 39.8% | 28.2% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 12.5% | 17.9% |
| Debt to equity | 1.37 | 3.32 |
Performance
CUBE leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | CUBE | JPM |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 3.5% | 1.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 7.3% | 2.6% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -2.2% | -3.3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 1.6% | 9.7% |
| Year to date | 11.9% | 5.3% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -4.1% | 12.9% |
Technicals
CUBE has the stronger structure| Metric | CUBE | JPM |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 75.5 | 60.9 |
| ADX (14) | 25 | 15 |
| Price vs 50-day | 9.2% | -2% |
| Price vs 200-day | 2% | 5.2% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 19.4% | 13% |
Risk
JPM is the more resilient| Metric | CUBE | JPM |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.29 | 0.73 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.18 | 0.41 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.29 | 0.56 |
| Max drawdown | -14.4% | -15.5% |
| Current drawdown | -5.1% | -7.1% |
| Annualized volatility | 22% | 22% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.3% | -2.4% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, CUBE or JPM?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, JPM is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 53 against CUBE's 49. The edge comes from quality and risk resilience. CUBE 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 CUBE or JPM the better buy right now?
JPM carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 31, 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 4 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor JPM over CUBE?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. CUBE leads Momentum by 18 points; JPM leads Quality by 16 points; JPM leads Risk Resilience by 15 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, CUBE or JPM?
Analyst price targets imply +1.4% upside for CUBE and +10.7% for JPM, so the Street currently favors JPM. 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 JPM?
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, CUBE or JPM?
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 JPM?
CUBE on the Momentum factor, by 18 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 JPM?
JPM is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. JPM on Risk Resilience, by 15 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 JPM?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 17.4% vs 63.2%; operating margin 39.8% vs 28.2%; ttm roe 12.5% vs 17.9%. CUBE leads on one measure and JPM on two measures, 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 JPM's lead over CUBE getting stronger or weaker?
JPM lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 8 to 4 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-29 and 2026-10-28. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the CUBE vs JPM verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: CUBE closes the Quality gap — currently 16 points behind, the largest single contributor to JPM's edge; CUBE's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; JPM'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 4 points over 30 sessions, and a further 4-point move would eliminate JPM's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about CUBE and JPM?
CUBE: 2 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. JPM: 2 bullish / 1 bearish, 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 Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On JPM it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare CUBE and JPM 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.