ESS vs MAA Stock Comparison
ESS currently leads MAA in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 45 vs 42. The clearest difference is momentum, while MAA has the stronger value profile.
What is the main difference between ESS and MAA?
ESS leads the current stock comparison as Essex Property Trust, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Essex Property Trust, Inc. vs Mid-America Apartment Communities, Inc.
ESS leads
ESS leads by 3 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Quality, but the lead has narrowed from 7 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors MAA on target upside.
Fragile: 2 of 6 evidence groups support ESS, its lead is narrowing, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Essex Property Trust, Inc.
Mid-America Apartment Communities, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors ESS over MAA, 45 versus 42 as of Oct 21, 2026. ESS's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and quality, while MAA holds the stronger value profile. ESS also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors MAA. 2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor ESS today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 3 points. ESS lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 7 to 3 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Essex Property Trust, Inc. and Mid-America Apartment Communities, 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 ESS and MAA 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.
- Momentum54 vs 42ESS +12
- Value28 vs 35MAA +7
- Quality49 vs 43ESS +6
- Risk Resilience54 vs 53Even
2 of 6 evidence groups favor ESS. ESS’s edge is concentrated in momentum and quality; MAA keeps a meaningful value edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-20, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-19.
Largest factor move: Momentum +24
New signals
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum +7
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
The lead changed hands: ESS moved ahead of MAA in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — ESS and MAA both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
ESS (Essex Property Trust, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and quality.
MAA (Mid-America Apartment Communities, Inc.): the counter-case, on value, valuation, analyst expectations.
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
ESSESS on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
MAAMAA on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
MAAMAA on the peer-relative Value factor, by 7 points.
Momentum
ESSESS on the Momentum factor, by 12 points.
Lower downside
ESSESS carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
MAAMAA on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors ESS, analyst targets favor MAA. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | ESS | MAA | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +9.7% | +15.9% | MAA has more room |
| Target dispersion | +26.6% | +25.7% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 14 | 11 | 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 | ESS | MAA |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 4.10% | 8.66% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $8.311 | $4.000 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $10.160 | $6.060 |
| Years increased | 4 | 4 |
| No cut in window | No (1) | No (1) |
| Cohort rank | not ranked | not ranked |
MAA grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 8.66% a year against ESS's 4.10%.
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
2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor ESS. 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 | 45 vs 42 |
| Fundamentals | ESSon balance | revenue growth 0.9% vs 0.3%; EPS growth -41.2% vs -1.9%; TTM ROE 7.6% vs 7.2%; gross margin 69.4% vs 47.3%; operating margin 29.1% vs 26.9% — ESS takes 3 of 4 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | MAA | Value 28 vs 35 |
| Technicals | ESS | Price vs 50-day -0.9% vs -4.7%; vs 200-day 1.1% vs -9.6% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 54 vs 53 |
| Analyst expectations | MAA | Target upside 9.7% vs 15.9% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of ESS and MAA 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 3 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 2 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)
- The leader's signal state is cleanly positive. (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 ESS.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20ESS lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 7 to 3 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- ESS +3
- 45 vs 42
- 7 sessions ago
- ESS +3
- 43 vs 40
- 30 sessions ago
- ESS +7
- 44 vs 37
- 90 sessions ago
- Level
- 43 vs 43
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on Oct 20 when ESS moved ahead of MAA.
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 / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
Only ESS
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (2.78%)
1 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only MAA
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (5.08%)
- 52-Week Low Proximity — bearish, risk, long horizon (1.7%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: Bollinger Band Squeeze, MACD Bullish Crossover.
MAA 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 and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.75%, AIQ +6 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.27%, AIQ +2 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.
- 1MAA closes the Momentum gap — currently 12 points behind, the largest single contributor to ESS's edge.
- 2MAA's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3ESS's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 4 points over 30 sessions, and a further 3-point move would eliminate ESS'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
ESS leads on balance| Metric | ESS | MAA |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 0.9% | 0.3% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -41.2% | -1.9% |
| Gross margin | 69.4% | 47.3% |
| Operating margin | 29.1% | 26.9% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 7.6% | 7.2% |
| Debt to equity | 1.27 | 1.05 |
Performance
ESS leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | ESS | MAA |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 0.1% | 0.8% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -1% | -1.5% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -7.2% | -10.8% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 7.5% | -6.7% |
| Year to date | 4% | -15.5% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 5.6% | -10.7% |
Technicals
ESS has the stronger structure| Metric | ESS | MAA |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 55 | 48.7 |
| ADX (14) | 17.3 | 35.7 |
| Price vs 50-day | -0.9% | -4.7% |
| Price vs 200-day | 1.1% | -9.6% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 14.5% | 15.6% |
Risk
Split| Metric | ESS | MAA |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.12 | 0.05 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.14 | -0.74 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.19 | -1.21 |
| Max drawdown | -10.6% | -19.7% |
| Current drawdown | -8.8% | -17.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 19.8% | 19.3% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.1% | -2% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, ESS or MAA?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, ESS is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 45 against MAA's 42. The edge comes from momentum and quality. MAA 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 ESS or MAA the better buy right now?
ESS carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 3 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor ESS over MAA?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. ESS leads Momentum by 12 points; MAA leads Value by 7 points; ESS leads Quality by 6 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, ESS or MAA?
Analyst price targets imply +9.7% upside for ESS and +15.9% for MAA, so the Street currently favors MAA. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors ESS. 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, ESS or MAA?
MAA is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. MAA on the peer-relative Value factor, by 7 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, ESS or MAA?
MAA 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, ESS or MAA?
ESS on the Momentum factor, by 12 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, ESS or MAA?
ESS is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. ESS carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility. Risk Resilience is a weighted factor in the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is ESS more profitable than MAA?
ESS leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 69.4% vs 47.3%; operating margin 29.1% vs 26.9%; ttm roe 7.6% vs 7.2%.
Is ESS's lead over MAA getting stronger or weaker?
ESS lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 7 to 3 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 2 times in that window, most recently on 2026-10-20, when ESS moved ahead of MAA.
What would change the ESS vs MAA verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: MAA closes the Momentum gap — currently 12 points behind, the largest single contributor to ESS's edge; MAA's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; ESS's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 4 points over 30 sessions, and a further 3-point move would eliminate ESS's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about ESS and MAA?
ESS: 2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. MAA: 1 bullish / 3 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 ESS is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On MAA it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare ESS and MAA 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.