DLR vs LXP Stock Comparison
Compare DLR and LXP across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between DLR and LXP?
LXP leads the current stock comparison as LXP Industrial Trust, with the clearest separation coming from risk resilience and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Digital Realty Trust, Inc. vs LXP Industrial Trust
LXP leads
LXP leads by 8 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Momentum, and the lead has widened from 5 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors DLR on target upside.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support LXP, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Digital Realty Trust, Inc.
LXP Industrial Trust
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors LXP over DLR, 42 versus 34 as of Sep 11, 2026. LXP's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and momentum, while DLR holds the stronger quality profile. LXP also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors DLR. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor LXP today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. LXP lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 5 to 8 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Digital Realty Trust, Inc. and LXP Industrial 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 DLR and LXP 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 Resilience61 vs 88LXP +27
- Momentum35 vs 59LXP +24
- Quality30 vs 23DLR +7
- Value25 vs 25Even
3 of 6 evidence groups favor LXP. LXP’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and momentum; DLR keeps a meaningful quality 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: Momentum -21
No new signals fired.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
LXP's lead widened by 6 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — DLR and LXP both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
LXP (LXP Industrial Trust): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and momentum.
DLR (Digital Realty Trust, Inc.): the counter-case, on quality, fundamentals, analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 22.6% against 3.5%.
The AIQ Score and Wall Street therefore point in different directions on this pair.
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
LXPLXP on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
DLRDLR on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
LXPLXP on the Momentum factor, by 24 points.
Lower downside
LXPLXP on Risk Resilience, by 27 points.
Analyst upside
DLRDLR on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors LXP, analyst targets favor DLR. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | DLR | LXP | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +15.8% | -0.9% | DLR has more room |
| Target dispersion | +23.4% | +18.2% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 16 | 3 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
The two are measuring different things. The AIQ Score reads current fundamentals, valuation, trend and risk; analyst targets price forward expectations. A divergence of this kind is either a contrarian opportunity or a sign the model is missing something already priced in — it is worth resolving before acting on either.
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor LXP. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | LXP | 34 vs 42 |
| Fundamentals | DLR | revenue growth 17.7% vs 2.5%; TTM ROE 3.3% vs 3.2%; gross margin 13.8% vs -16.7%; operating margin 17.9% vs 14.8% |
| Valuation | Even | Value 25 vs 25 |
| Technicals | LXP | Price vs 50-day 1% vs 2.1%; vs 200-day 3.4% vs 16% |
| Risk Resilience | LXP | Risk Resilience 61 vs 88 |
| Analyst expectations | DLR | Target upside 15.8% vs -0.9% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of DLR and LXP 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 moderate at 8 points.
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 LXP.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10LXP lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 5 to 8 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- LXP +8
- 34 vs 42
- 7 sessions ago
- LXP +7
- 37 vs 44
- 30 sessions ago
- LXP +5
- 39 vs 44
- 90 sessions ago
- LXP +13
- 31 vs 44
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on Aug 13 when LXP moved ahead of DLR.
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, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (4.16%)
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
4 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (13.63%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (1.2%)
LXP 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 6 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +1.73%, AIQ -6 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.03%, 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.
- 1DLR closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 27 points behind, the largest single contributor to LXP's edge.
- 2DLR's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 3LXP's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 4 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
DLR leads on balance| Metric | DLR | LXP |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 17.7% | 2.5% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 155.1% | 0% |
| Gross margin | 13.8% | -16.7% |
| Operating margin | 17.9% | 14.8% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 3.3% | 3.2% |
| Debt to equity | 0.67 | 0.71 |
Performance
LXP leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | DLR | LXP |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 0.9% | 0.1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -5.9% | 0.2% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 2.5% | 15.3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 2.6% | 28.1% |
| Year to date | 19.8% | 22.7% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 15% | 33.5% |
Technicals
LXP has the stronger structure| Metric | DLR | LXP |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 35.8 | 47.4 |
| ADX (14) | 13.4 | 40.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | 1% | 2.1% |
| Price vs 200-day | 3.4% | 16% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 22.6% | 3.5% |
Risk
LXP is the more resilient| Metric | DLR | LXP |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.76 | 0.38 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.44 | 1.28 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.76 | 1.73 |
| Max drawdown | -17.5% | -10.9% |
| Current drawdown | -9.1% | -0.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 27.3% | 21.9% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.5% | -2.4% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, DLR or LXP?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, LXP is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 42 against DLR's 34. The edge comes from risk resilience and momentum. DLR is not without a case — it holds the better quality 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 DLR or LXP the better buy right now?
LXP 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: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor LXP over DLR?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. LXP leads Risk Resilience by 27 points; LXP leads Momentum by 24 points; DLR leads Quality by 7 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, DLR or LXP?
Analyst price targets imply +15.8% upside for DLR and -0.9% for LXP, so the Street currently favors DLR. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors LXP. The two are measuring different things: the model reads current fundamentals, valuation, trend and risk; the Street is pricing forward expectations. A divergence of this kind is either a contrarian opportunity or a sign the model is missing something the analysts have already priced — it is the single most useful row on this page to investigate. Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions, and dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Which is better value, DLR or LXP?
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, DLR or LXP?
DLR 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, DLR or LXP?
LXP on the Momentum factor, by 24 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, DLR or LXP?
LXP is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. LXP on Risk Resilience, by 27 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 DLR more profitable than LXP?
DLR leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 13.8% vs -16.7%; operating margin 17.9% vs 14.8%; ttm roe 3.3% vs 3.2%.
Is LXP's lead over DLR getting stronger or weaker?
LXP lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 5 to 8 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 2 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-13, when LXP moved ahead of DLR.
What would change the DLR vs LXP verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: DLR closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 27 points behind, the largest single contributor to LXP's edge; DLR's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it; LXP's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 4 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 DLR and LXP?
DLR: 1 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. LXP: 4 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 DLR is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On LXP it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare DLR and LXP 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.