HASI vs NLY Stock Comparison
NLY currently leads HASI in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 50 vs 36. The clearest difference is value, while HASI has the stronger risk resilience profile.
What is the main difference between HASI and NLY?
NLY leads the current stock comparison as Annaly Capital Management, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
HA Sustainable Infrastructure Capital, Inc. vs Annaly Capital Management, Inc.
NLY leads
NLY leads by 14 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Quality, but the lead has narrowed from 18 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors HASI on target upside.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support NLY, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
HA Sustainable Infrastructure Capital, Inc.
Annaly Capital Management, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors NLY over HASI, 50 versus 36 as of Oct 21, 2026. NLY's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and quality, while HASI holds the stronger risk resilience profile. NLY also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors HASI. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor NLY today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. NLY lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 18 to 14 points over 30 sessions.
Compare HA Sustainable Infrastructure Capital, Inc. and Annaly Capital Management, 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 HASI and NLY 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.
- Value38 vs 72NLY +34
- Quality16 vs 48NLY +32
- Risk Resilience62 vs 36HASI +26
- Momentum40 vs 34HASI +6
3 of 6 evidence groups favor NLY. NLY’s edge is concentrated in value and quality; HASI 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.
Largest factor move: Momentum -3, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +9
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
NLY's lead widened by 2 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — HASI and NLY both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
NLY (Annaly Capital Management, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and quality.
HASI (HA Sustainable Infrastructure Capital, Inc.): the counter-case, on risk resilience, momentum, technicals.
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
NLYNLY on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
HASIHASI on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
NLYNLY on the peer-relative Value factor, by 34 points.
Momentum
HASIHASI on the Momentum factor, by 6 points.
Lower downside
HASIHASI on Risk Resilience, by 26 points.
Analyst upside
HASIHASI on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors NLY, analyst targets favor HASI. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | HASI | NLY | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +38.9% | +25.9% | HASI has more room |
| Target dispersion | +31.6% | +13.2% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 6 | 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 | HASI | NLY |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 4.32% | -5.11% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $1.360 | $3.640 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $1.680 | $2.800 |
| Years increased | 5 | 1 |
| No cut in window | Yes | No (2) |
| Cohort rank | #274 | not ranked |
HASI grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 4.32% a year against NLY's -5.11%. HASI never reduced its regular dividend in the window; NLY did in 2 years. They are ranked in different cohorts — US dividend-paying corporations and REITs — so their ranks are not comparable with each other.
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 NLY. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | NLY | 36 vs 50 |
| Fundamentals | NLYon balance | revenue growth -2.8% vs 37.1%; EPS growth 275.4% vs 224.2%; TTM ROE 3.4% vs 18.4%; gross margin 27.7% vs 99.3%; operating margin -3.7% vs 111.8% — NLY takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | NLY | Value 38 vs 72 |
| Technicals | HASI | Price vs 50-day -4.3% vs -14.7%; vs 200-day -6% vs -17.4% |
| Risk Resilience | HASI | Risk Resilience 62 vs 36 |
| Analyst expectations | HASI | Target upside 38.9% vs 25.9% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of HASI and NLY 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 wide at 14 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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)
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Signal direction runs against the verdict: the leader is net-bearish while the laggard is net-bullish. (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 NLY.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20NLY lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 18 to 14 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- NLY +14
- 36 vs 50
- 7 sessions ago
- NLY +11
- 37 vs 48
- 30 sessions ago
- NLY +18
- 31 vs 49
- 90 sessions ago
- NLY +9
- 50 vs 59
The lead has not changed hands in this window.
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 HASI
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (0.31%)
1 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only NLY
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (4.90%)
- 52-Week Low Proximity — bearish, risk, long horizon (0.3%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: Bollinger Band Squeeze, MACD Bullish Crossover.
NLY 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 +2.27%, AIQ 0 points).
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 2 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -1.53%, 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.
- 1HASI closes the Value gap — currently 34 points behind, the largest single contributor to NLY's edge.
- 2HASI's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3NLY's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 3 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 4 points over 30 sessions, and a further 14-point move would eliminate NLY'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
NLY leads on balance| Metric | HASI | NLY |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -2.8% | 37.1% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 275.4% | 224.2% |
| Gross margin | 27.7% | 99.3% |
| Operating margin | -3.7% | 111.8% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 3.4% | 18.4% |
| Debt to equity | 2.32 | 7.38 |
Performance
HASI leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | HASI | NLY |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -3.4% | 0.7% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -4.1% | -14.7% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -5.9% | -18.4% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -10.7% | -19.1% |
| Year to date | 13.5% | -18.2% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 18.9% | -10.8% |
Technicals
HASI has the stronger structure| Metric | HASI | NLY |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 48.1 | 41 |
| ADX (14) | 20.6 | 56.1 |
| Price vs 50-day | -4.3% | -14.7% |
| Price vs 200-day | -6% | -17.4% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 18.4% | 30.5% |
Risk
HASI is the more resilient| Metric | HASI | NLY |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.02 | 0.58 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.73 | -0.68 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.43 | -0.9 |
| Max drawdown | -17.9% | -27.4% |
| Current drawdown | -17.6% | -25% |
| Annualized volatility | 30.1% | 21.5% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.7% | -2% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, HASI or NLY?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, NLY is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 50 against HASI's 36. The edge comes from value and quality. HASI 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 HASI or NLY the better buy right now?
NLY 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: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor NLY over HASI?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. NLY leads Value by 34 points; NLY leads Quality by 32 points; HASI leads Risk Resilience by 26 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, HASI or NLY?
Analyst price targets imply +38.9% upside for HASI and +25.9% for NLY, so the Street currently favors HASI. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors NLY. 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, HASI or NLY?
NLY is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. NLY on the peer-relative Value factor, by 34 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, HASI or NLY?
HASI 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, HASI or NLY?
HASI on the Momentum factor, by 6 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, HASI or NLY?
HASI is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. HASI 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 HASI more profitable than NLY?
NLY leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 27.7% vs 99.3%; operating margin -3.7% vs 111.8%; ttm roe 3.4% vs 18.4%.
Is NLY's lead over HASI getting stronger or weaker?
NLY lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 18 to 14 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the HASI vs NLY verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: HASI closes the Value gap — currently 34 points behind, the largest single contributor to NLY's edge; HASI's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; NLY's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 3 bearish rules at once; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 4 points over 30 sessions, and a further 14-point move would eliminate NLY's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about HASI and NLY?
HASI: 2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. NLY: 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 HASI is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On NLY it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare HASI and NLY 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.