ESS vs NXRT Stock Comparison
ESS currently leads NXRT in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 45 vs 41. The clearest difference is risk resilience, while NXRT has the stronger value profile.
What is the main difference between ESS and NXRT?
ESS leads the current stock comparison as Essex Property Trust, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from risk resilience and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Essex Property Trust, Inc. vs NexPoint Residential Trust, Inc.
ESS leads
ESS leads by 4 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Quality. Wall Street currently favors NXRT on target upside.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support ESS, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Essex Property Trust, Inc.
NexPoint Residential Trust, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors ESS over NXRT, 45 versus 41 as of Oct 21, 2026. ESS's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and quality, while NXRT 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 NXRT. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor ESS today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 4 points. ESS lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 4 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Essex Property Trust, Inc. and NexPoint Residential 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 ESS and NXRT 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.
- Value28 vs 63NXRT +35
- Risk Resilience54 vs 28ESS +26
- Quality49 vs 30ESS +19
- Momentum54 vs 35ESS +19
3 of 6 evidence groups favor ESS. ESS’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and quality; NXRT 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 +2
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 6 active signals are unchanged.
The lead changed hands: ESS moved ahead of NXRT in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — ESS and NXRT both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
ESS (Essex Property Trust, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and quality.
NXRT (NexPoint Residential Trust, Inc.): the counter-case, on value, fundamentals, valuation — but at materially higher volatility, 47.3% against 14.5%.
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
ESSESS on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
NXRTNXRT on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
NXRTNXRT on the peer-relative Value factor, by 35 points.
Momentum
ESSESS on the Momentum factor, by 19 points.
Lower downside
ESSESS on Risk Resilience, by 26 points.
Analyst upside
NXRTNXRT 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 NXRT. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | ESS | NXRT | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +9.7% | +17.5% | NXRT has more room |
| Target dispersion | +26.6% | +37.6% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 14 | 2 | 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 | NXRT |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 4.10% | 10.00% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $8.311 | $1.279 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $10.160 | $2.060 |
| Years increased | 4 | 5 |
| No cut in window | No (1) | Yes |
| Cohort rank | not ranked | #10 |
NXRT grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 10.00% a year against ESS's 4.10%. NXRT never reduced its regular dividend in the window; ESS did in 1 year.
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 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 | ESS | 45 vs 41 |
| Fundamentals | NXRTon balance | revenue growth 0.9% vs 1.7%; EPS growth -41.2% vs -22.2%; TTM ROE 7.6% vs -11.8%; gross margin 69.4% vs 90.8%; operating margin 29.1% vs 11.1% — NXRT takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | NXRT | Value 28 vs 63 |
| Technicals | ESS | Price vs 50-day -0.9% vs -16.7%; vs 200-day 1.1% vs -29.9% |
| Risk Resilience | ESS | Risk Resilience 54 vs 28 |
| Analyst expectations | NXRT | Target upside 9.7% vs 17.5% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of ESS and NXRT 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 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: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 4 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- ESS +4
- 45 vs 41
- 7 sessions ago
- ESS +2
- 43 vs 41
- 30 sessions ago
- ESS +5
- 44 vs 39
- 90 sessions ago
- ESS +7
- 43 vs 36
The lead changed hands 3 times in this window, most recently on Oct 20 when ESS moved ahead of NXRT.
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 / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only NXRT
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (21.55%)
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (4.00%)
- 52-Week Low Proximity — bearish, risk, long horizon (1.6%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: Bollinger Band Squeeze, MACD Bullish Crossover.
NXRT 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 is down while the AIQ Score moved up 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -2.22%, 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.
- 1NXRT closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 26 points behind, the largest single contributor to ESS's edge.
- 2NXRT'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.
- 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
NXRT leads on balance| Metric | ESS | NXRT |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 0.9% | 1.7% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -41.2% | -22.2% |
| Gross margin | 69.4% | 90.8% |
| Operating margin | 29.1% | 11.1% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 7.6% | -11.8% |
| Debt to equity | 1.27 | 6.41 |
Performance
ESS leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | ESS | NXRT |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 0.1% | -4% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -1% | -14.8% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -7.2% | -29% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 7.5% | -30.1% |
| Year to date | 4% | -38.5% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 5.6% | -40.1% |
Technicals
ESS has the stronger structure| Metric | ESS | NXRT |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 55 | 42 |
| ADX (14) | 17.3 | 42.4 |
| Price vs 50-day | -0.9% | -16.7% |
| Price vs 200-day | 1.1% | -29.9% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 14.5% | 47.3% |
Risk
ESS is the more resilient| Metric | ESS | NXRT |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.12 | 0.33 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.14 | -1.59 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.19 | -2.52 |
| Max drawdown | -10.6% | -44.2% |
| Current drawdown | -8.8% | -42.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 19.8% | 31.1% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.1% | -3.2% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, ESS or NXRT?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, ESS is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 45 against NXRT's 41. The edge comes from risk resilience and quality. NXRT 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 NXRT the better buy right now?
ESS carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 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 ESS over NXRT?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. NXRT leads Value by 35 points; ESS leads Risk Resilience by 26 points; ESS leads Quality by 19 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, ESS or NXRT?
Analyst price targets imply +9.7% upside for ESS and +17.5% for NXRT, so the Street currently favors NXRT. 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 NXRT?
NXRT is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. NXRT on the peer-relative Value factor, by 35 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 NXRT?
NXRT 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 NXRT?
ESS on the Momentum factor, by 19 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 NXRT?
ESS is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. ESS on Risk Resilience, by 26 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 ESS more profitable than NXRT?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 69.4% vs 90.8%; operating margin 29.1% vs 11.1%; ttm roe 7.6% vs -11.8%. ESS leads on two measures and NXRT on one measure, and there is no single profitability composite that resolves the split — which of the two reads as "more profitable" depends on whether you weight pricing power or operating leverage.
Is ESS's lead over NXRT getting stronger or weaker?
ESS lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 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 3 times in that window, most recently on 2026-10-20, when ESS moved ahead of NXRT.
What would change the ESS vs NXRT verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: NXRT closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 26 points behind, the largest single contributor to ESS's edge; NXRT'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; 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 ESS and NXRT?
ESS: 2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. NXRT: 1 bullish / 3 bearish / 2 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 NXRT it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare ESS and NXRT 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.