EQR vs IRT Stock Comparison
EQR currently leads IRT in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 48 vs 44. The clearest difference is quality, while IRT has the stronger risk resilience profile.
What is the main difference between EQR and IRT?
EQR leads the current stock comparison as Equity Residential, with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Equity Residential vs Independence Realty Trust, Inc.
EQR leads
EQR leads by 4 AIQ points, primarily on Quality, but the lead has narrowed from 9 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors IRT on target upside.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support EQR, and its lead is narrowing.
Equity Residential
Independence Realty Trust, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors EQR over IRT, 48 versus 44 as of Oct 22, 2026. EQR's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality, while IRT holds the stronger risk resilience profile. EQR also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors IRT. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor EQR today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 4 points. EQR lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 9 to 4 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Equity Residential and Independence Realty Trust, Inc. 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 EQR and IRT 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.
- Quality47 vs 21EQR +26
- Risk Resilience46 vs 57IRT +11
- Value50 vs 56IRT +6
3 of 6 evidence groups favor EQR. EQR’s edge is concentrated in quality; IRT keeps a meaningful risk resilience edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-20, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-19.
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session.
Largest factor move: Momentum +15
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
EQR's lead narrowed by 4 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — EQR and IRT both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
EQR (Equity Residential): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality.
IRT (Independence Realty Trust, Inc.): the counter-case, on risk resilience, value, valuation.
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
EQREQR on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
IRTIRT on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
IRTIRT on the peer-relative Value factor, by 6 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
IRTIRT on Risk Resilience, by 11 points.
Analyst upside
IRTIRT on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors EQR, analyst targets favor IRT. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | EQR | IRT | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +13.5% | +26% | IRT has more room |
| Target dispersion | +18% | +16.1% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 10 | 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.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | EQR | IRT |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 2.69% | 4.41% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $2.411 | $0.540 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $2.753 | $0.670 |
| Years increased | 4 | 4 |
| No cut in window | No (1) | No (1) |
| Cohort rank | not ranked | not ranked |
IRT grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 4.41% a year against EQR's 2.69%.
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 EQR. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | EQR | 48 vs 44 |
| Fundamentals | EQRon balance | revenue growth 0.7% vs 1.2%; EPS growth 25% vs 49%; TTM ROE 8.1% vs 1.3%; gross margin 46% vs 1%; operating margin 28.1% vs 17% — EQR takes 3 of 4 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | IRT | Value 50 vs 56 |
| Technicals | EQR | Price vs 50-day -5.6% vs -4.2%; vs 200-day 0.3% vs -8.1% |
| Risk Resilience | IRT | Risk Resilience 46 vs 57 |
| Analyst expectations | IRT | Target upside 13.5% vs 26% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of EQR and IRT 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 lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
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 EQR.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20EQR lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 9 to 4 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- EQR +4
- 48 vs 44
- 7 sessions ago
- EQR +5
- 48 vs 43
- 30 sessions ago
- EQR +9
- 48 vs 39
- 90 sessions ago
- IRT +4
- 42 vs 46
The lead changed hands 4 times in this window, most recently on Aug 25 when EQR moved ahead of IRT.
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.
No active signals
No signal that the other name lacks.
1 bullish / 3 bearish, conflicted
Only IRT
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (4.42%)
- 52-Week Low Proximity — bearish, risk, long horizon (1.1%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
IRT is conflicted, so the timing case there is weaker than the score alone suggests.
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 down while the AIQ Score moved up 4 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -0.2%, AIQ +4 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.
- 1IRT closes the Quality gap — currently 26 points behind, the largest single contributor to EQR's edge.
- 2IRT's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3EQR starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 5 points over 30 sessions, and a further 4-point move would eliminate EQR'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
EQR leads on balance| Metric | EQR | IRT |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 0.7% | 1.2% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 25% | 49% |
| Gross margin | 46% | 1% |
| Operating margin | 28.1% | 17% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 8.1% | 1.3% |
| Debt to equity | 0.81 | 0.73 |
Performance
EQR leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | EQR | IRT |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -3.3% | 0% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -7.5% | 0.6% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -0.3% | -9.2% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -0.3% | -6.6% |
| Year to date | 1% | -15% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -0.5% | -7.6% |
Technicals
EQR has the stronger structure| Metric | EQR | IRT |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 32.1 | 58.3 |
| ADX (14) | 15.2 | 20.5 |
| Price vs 50-day | -5.6% | -4.2% |
| Price vs 200-day | 0.3% | -8.1% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 22.6% | 19.1% |
Risk
IRT is the more resilient| Metric | EQR | IRT |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.11 | 0.16 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.22 | -0.43 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.34 | -0.61 |
| Max drawdown | -11.7% | -18.7% |
| Current drawdown | -9.3% | -16.4% |
| Annualized volatility | 20.5% | 21.7% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.2% | -2.2% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, EQR or IRT?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, EQR is the stronger of the two as of Oct 22, 2026, scoring 48 against IRT's 44. The edge comes from quality. IRT 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 EQR or IRT the better buy right now?
EQR carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 22, 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 EQR over IRT?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. EQR leads Quality by 26 points; IRT leads Risk Resilience by 11 points; IRT leads Value by 6 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, EQR or IRT?
Analyst price targets imply +13.5% upside for EQR and +26% for IRT, so the Street currently favors IRT. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors EQR. 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, EQR or IRT?
IRT is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. IRT 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, EQR or IRT?
IRT 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, EQR or IRT?
The two are level on Momentum. 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, EQR or IRT?
IRT is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. IRT on Risk Resilience, by 11 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 EQR more profitable than IRT?
EQR leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 46% vs 1%; operating margin 28.1% vs 17%; ttm roe 8.1% vs 1.3%.
Is EQR's lead over IRT getting stronger or weaker?
EQR lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 9 to 4 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has changed hands 4 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-25, when EQR moved ahead of IRT.
What would change the EQR vs IRT verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: IRT closes the Quality gap — currently 26 points behind, the largest single contributor to EQR's edge; IRT's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; EQR starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 5 points over 30 sessions, and a further 4-point move would eliminate EQR's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about EQR and IRT?
EQR: No active signals. IRT: 1 bullish / 3 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. On IRT it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare EQR and IRT 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.