ESRT vs IRM Stock Comparison
Compare ESRT and IRM across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between ESRT and IRM?
IRM leads the current stock comparison as Iron Mountain Incorporated, with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Empire State Realty Trust, Inc. vs Iron Mountain Incorporated
IRM leads
IRM leads by 7 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Momentum. Wall Street currently favors ESRT on target upside.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support IRM, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Empire State Realty Trust, Inc.
Iron Mountain Incorporated
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors IRM over ESRT, 44 versus 37 as of Sep 11, 2026. IRM's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and momentum, while ESRT holds the stronger value profile. IRM also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors ESRT. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor IRM today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. IRM lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 7 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Empire State Realty Trust, Inc. and Iron Mountain Incorporated 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 ESRT and IRM 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.
- Quality1 vs 54IRM +53
- Value75 vs 48ESRT +27
- Risk Resilience53 vs 38ESRT +15
- Momentum25 vs 30IRM +5
3 of 6 evidence groups favor IRM. IRM’s edge is concentrated in quality and momentum; ESRT keeps a meaningful value 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 -4
New signals
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
IRM's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — ESRT and IRM both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
IRM (Iron Mountain Incorporated): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and momentum.
ESRT (Empire State Realty Trust, Inc.): the counter-case, on value, risk resilience, 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
IRMIRM on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
ESRTESRT on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
ESRTESRT on the peer-relative Value factor, by 27 points.
Momentum
IRMIRM on the Momentum factor, by 5 points.
Lower downside
ESRTESRT on Risk Resilience, by 15 points.
Analyst upside
ESRTESRT on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors IRM, analyst targets favor ESRT. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | ESRT | IRM | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +28.5% | +25.5% | ESRT has more room |
| Target dispersion | +18.2% | +10.4% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 2 | 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 IRM. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | IRM | 37 vs 44 |
| Fundamentals | IRMon balance | revenue growth 3.5% vs 4.8%; EPS growth -21.8% vs -29.2%; gross margin -22.9% vs 54.2%; operating margin 16.8% vs 18.8% — IRM takes 3 of 4 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | ESRT | Value 75 vs 48 |
| Technicals | IRM | Price vs 50-day -15.1% vs -5.2%; vs 200-day -25.5% vs 2.8% |
| Risk Resilience | ESRT | Risk Resilience 53 vs 38 |
| Analyst expectations | ESRT | Target upside 28.5% vs 25.5% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of ESRT and IRM 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 7 points.
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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 IRM.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10IRM lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 7 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- IRM +7
- 37 vs 44
- 7 sessions ago
- IRM +3
- 40 vs 43
- 30 sessions ago
- IRM +6
- 38 vs 44
- 90 sessions ago
- ESRT +4
- 45 vs 41
The lead changed hands 4 times in this window, most recently on Jul 30 when IRM moved ahead of ESRT.
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 / 5 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (12.92%)
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
2 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (10.53%)
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
IRM 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 +0.94%, AIQ 0 points).
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +2.02%, 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.
- 1ESRT closes the Quality gap — currently 53 points behind, the largest single contributor to IRM's edge.
- 2ESRT's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3IRM's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 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
IRM leads on balance| Metric | ESRT | IRM |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 3.5% | 4.8% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -21.8% | -29.2% |
| Gross margin | -22.9% | 54.2% |
| Operating margin | 16.8% | 18.8% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 0.7% | -38.4% |
| Debt to equity | 2.14 | -15.31 |
Performance
IRM leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | ESRT | IRM |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -3.4% | 0.9% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -10.2% | -9.2% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -24.2% | -8.5% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -20.3% | 4.9% |
| Year to date | -32.7% | 36.1% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -45.5% | 22.1% |
Technicals
IRM has the stronger structure| Metric | ESRT | IRM |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 22.2 | 28.8 |
| ADX (14) | 30.6 | 15.7 |
| Price vs 50-day | -15.1% | -5.2% |
| Price vs 200-day | -25.5% | 2.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 30.6% | 30.2% |
Risk
ESRT is the more resilient| Metric | ESRT | IRM |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.33 | 1.08 |
| Sharpe ratio | -1.62 | 0.52 |
| Sortino ratio | -2.12 | 0.79 |
| Max drawdown | -46.8% | -25.9% |
| Current drawdown | -46.8% | -15.2% |
| Annualized volatility | 34.9% | 32.8% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.4% | -3.6% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, ESRT or IRM?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, IRM is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 44 against ESRT's 37. The edge comes from quality and momentum. ESRT is not without a case — it holds the better value 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 ESRT or IRM the better buy right now?
IRM 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 IRM over ESRT?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. IRM leads Quality by 53 points; ESRT leads Value by 27 points; ESRT leads Risk Resilience by 15 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, ESRT or IRM?
Analyst price targets imply +28.5% upside for ESRT and +25.5% for IRM, so the Street currently favors ESRT. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors IRM. 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, ESRT or IRM?
ESRT is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. ESRT on the peer-relative Value factor, by 27 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, ESRT or IRM?
ESRT 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, ESRT or IRM?
IRM on the Momentum factor, by 5 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, ESRT or IRM?
ESRT is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. ESRT 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 ESRT more profitable than IRM?
IRM leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin -22.9% vs 54.2%; operating margin 16.8% vs 18.8%; ttm roe 0.7% vs -38.4%.
Is IRM's lead over ESRT getting stronger or weaker?
IRM lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 7 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 2026-07-30, when IRM moved ahead of ESRT.
What would change the ESRT vs IRM verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: ESRT closes the Quality gap — currently 53 points behind, the largest single contributor to IRM's edge; ESRT's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; IRM's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 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 ESRT and IRM?
ESRT: 1 bullish / 5 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. IRM: 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 ESRT is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On IRM it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare ESRT and IRM 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.