ESS vs MAA Stock Comparison
Compare ESS and MAA across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
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 2 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Quality, having only recently taken the lead back from MAA.
Fragile: 2 of 6 evidence groups support ESS, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Essex Property Trust, Inc.
Mid-America Apartment Communities, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors ESS over MAA, 41 versus 39 as of Sep 6, 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. 2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor ESS today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. ESS lead: Reversed — MAA led by 2 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; ESS now leads by 2.
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
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 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.
- Momentum25%40 vs 32ESS +8
- Value30%28 vs 35MAA +7
- Quality30%49 vs 43ESS +6
- Risk Resilience15%52 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 2026-09-05, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-04.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
ESS's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
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.
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 at 30% each.
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 8 points.
Lower downside
MAAMAA carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
EvenAnalyst targets are level or not covered for both names.
AIQ vs Wall Street
Where the systematic read and the analyst consensus line up — and where they do not.
| Measure | ESS | MAA | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +8.2% | +8.8% | Level |
| Target dispersion | +26.5% | +25.1% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 14 | 10 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
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 | 41 vs 39 |
| 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 -3.7% vs -4.1%; vs 200-day 4.3% vs -2.9% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 52 vs 53 |
| Analyst expectations | Even | Target upside 8.2% vs 8.8% |
✓ 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 2 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (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 ESS.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 24 – Sep 5ESS lead: Reversed — MAA led by 2 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; ESS now leads by 2.
- Today
- ESS +2
- 41 vs 39
- 7 sessions ago
- ESS +2
- 46 vs 44
- 30 sessions ago
- MAA +2
- 45 vs 47
- 90 sessions ago
- ESS +1
- 54 vs 53
The lead changed hands once in this window, most recently on Jun 4 when MAA moved ahead of ESS.
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 (8.35%)
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
1 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (1.18%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
ESS 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 -0.01%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -0.19%, 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.
- 1MAA closes the Momentum gap — currently 8 points behind, the largest single contributor to ESS's edge.
- 2MAA's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 3ESS's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4A regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, 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
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) | -1.9% | -1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -3.3% | -4.9% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -2.4% | -6.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 9.2% | -3.4% |
| Year to date | 6.5% | -7.6% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 6.5% | -10.5% |
Technicals
ESS has the stronger structure| Metric | ESS | MAA |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 43.6 | 39.2 |
| ADX (14) | 21.8 | 9.9 |
| Price vs 50-day | -3.7% | -4.1% |
| Price vs 200-day | 4.3% | -2.9% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 18.9% | 15.8% |
Risk
Split| Metric | ESS | MAA |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.11 | 0.03 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.16 | -0.71 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.23 | -1.17 |
| Max drawdown | -10.9% | -17.1% |
| Current drawdown | -6.6% | -11.8% |
| Annualized volatility | 19.8% | 19.2% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.1% | -1.9% |
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 Sep 6, 2026, scoring 41 against MAA's 39. 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 Sep 6, 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 2 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor ESS over MAA?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. ESS leads Momentum by 8 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 +8.2% upside for ESS and +8.8% for MAA. 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, 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 8 points. Momentum carries 25% of 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?
MAA is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. MAA carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility. The Risk Resilience factor weights 15% of 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: Reversed — MAA led by 2 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; ESS now leads by 2. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-24 and 2026-09-05. The lead has changed hands once in that window, most recently on 2026-06-04, when MAA moved ahead of ESS.
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 8 points behind, the largest single contributor to ESS's edge; MAA's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it; ESS's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; a regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
What do the current signals say about ESS and MAA?
ESS: 1 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. MAA: 1 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 ESS is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On MAA it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare ESS and MAA with others
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality (30%), Value (30%), Momentum (25%) and Risk (15%). 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.