HPP vs JBGS Stock Comparison
JBGS currently leads HPP in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 45 vs 36. The clearest difference is momentum, while HPP has the stronger quality profile.
What is the main difference between HPP and JBGS?
JBGS leads the current stock comparison as JBG SMITH Properties, with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Hudson Pacific Properties, Inc. vs JBG SMITH Properties
JBGS leads
JBGS leads by 9 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Risk Resilience, having only recently taken the lead back from HPP. Wall Street currently favors HPP on target upside.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support JBGS, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Hudson Pacific Properties, Inc.
JBG SMITH Properties
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors JBGS over HPP, 45 versus 36 as of Oct 21, 2026. JBGS's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and risk resilience, while HPP holds the stronger quality profile. JBGS also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors HPP. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor JBGS today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. JBGS lead: Reversed — HPP led by 6 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; JBGS now leads by 9.
Compare Hudson Pacific Properties, Inc. and JBG SMITH Properties 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 HPP and JBGS 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 vs 59JBGS +34
- Risk Resilience22 vs 52JBGS +30
- Quality23 vs 9HPP +14
- Value65 vs 65Even
3 of 6 evidence groups favor JBGS. JBGS’s edge is concentrated in momentum and risk resilience; HPP keeps a meaningful quality 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 +1, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 6 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +4
New signals
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
JBGS's lead widened by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — HPP and JBGS both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
JBGS (JBG SMITH Properties): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and risk resilience.
HPP (Hudson Pacific Properties, Inc.): the counter-case, on quality, fundamentals, analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 69.7% against 31.6%.
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
JBGSJBGS on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
HPPHPP on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
JBGSJBGS on the Momentum factor, by 34 points.
Lower downside
JBGSJBGS on Risk Resilience, by 30 points.
Analyst upside
HPPHPP on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors JBGS, analyst targets favor HPP. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | HPP | JBGS | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +57.5% | +16.7% | HPP has more room |
| Target dispersion | +60.4% | +8% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Sell | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 7 | 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.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor JBGS. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | JBGS | 36 vs 45 |
| Fundamentals | HPPon balance | revenue growth 3.5% vs 1.4%; EPS growth -97.6% vs -221.9%; TTM ROE -18.6% vs -13.3%; gross margin 29.5% vs 20.3%; operating margin -0.3% vs 0.3% — HPP takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | Even | Value 65 vs 65 |
| Technicals | JBGS | Price vs 50-day -23.5% vs -5.3%; vs 200-day -12.8% vs -22.5% |
| Risk Resilience | JBGS | Risk Resilience 22 vs 52 |
| Analyst expectations | HPP | Target upside 57.5% vs 16.7% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of HPP and JBGS 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 9 points.
- Only 3 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 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 JBGS.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20JBGS lead: Reversed — HPP led by 6 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; JBGS now leads by 9.
- Today
- JBGS +9
- 36 vs 45
- 7 sessions ago
- JBGS +3
- 40 vs 43
- 30 sessions ago
- HPP +6
- 42 vs 36
- 90 sessions ago
- JBGS +5
- 41 vs 46
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on Oct 14 when JBGS moved ahead of HPP.
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 / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only HPP
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (13.75%)
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (7.49%)
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
1 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only JBGS
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (25.35%)
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 1 more signal that do not separate them: Bollinger Band Squeeze.
JBGS 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 -0.21%, AIQ 0 points).
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -2.46%, 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.
- 1HPP closes the Momentum gap — currently 34 points behind, the largest single contributor to JBGS's edge.
- 2HPP's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3JBGS's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 3 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
HPP leads on balance| Metric | HPP | JBGS |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 3.5% | 1.4% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -97.6% | -221.9% |
| Gross margin | 29.5% | 20.3% |
| Operating margin | -0.3% | 0.3% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -18.6% | -13.3% |
| Debt to equity | 1.33 | 2.41 |
Performance
JBGS leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | HPP | JBGS |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -22% | -1.5% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -21.5% | -0.3% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -34.3% | -23.5% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 13.8% | -29.6% |
| Year to date | -12.5% | -35.4% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -48.3% | -45.9% |
Technicals
JBGS has the stronger structure| Metric | HPP | JBGS |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 31.3 | 70.1 |
| ADX (14) | 30.1 | 20.4 |
| Price vs 50-day | -23.5% | -5.3% |
| Price vs 200-day | -12.8% | -22.5% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 69.7% | 31.6% |
Risk
JBGS is the more resilient| Metric | HPP | JBGS |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.24 | 0.25 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.62 | -1.8 |
| Sortino ratio | -1.04 | -2.2 |
| Max drawdown | -69.6% | -53.6% |
| Current drawdown | -47.7% | -49.2% |
| Annualized volatility | 70.8% | 33.5% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -6.9% | -3.1% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, HPP or JBGS?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, JBGS is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 45 against HPP's 36. The edge comes from momentum and risk resilience. HPP is not without a case — it holds the better quality 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 HPP or JBGS the better buy right now?
JBGS 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 JBGS over HPP?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. JBGS leads Momentum by 34 points; JBGS leads Risk Resilience by 30 points; HPP leads Quality by 14 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, HPP or JBGS?
Analyst price targets imply +57.5% upside for HPP and +16.7% for JBGS, so the Street currently favors HPP. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors JBGS. 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, HPP or JBGS?
Neither name separates on the peer-relative Value factor. The two are level on Value. 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, HPP or JBGS?
HPP 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, HPP or JBGS?
JBGS on the Momentum factor, by 34 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, HPP or JBGS?
JBGS is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. JBGS on Risk Resilience, by 30 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 HPP more profitable than JBGS?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 29.5% vs 20.3%; operating margin -0.3% vs 0.3%; ttm roe -18.6% vs -13.3%. HPP leads on one measure and JBGS on two measures, 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 JBGS's lead over HPP getting stronger or weaker?
JBGS lead: Reversed — HPP led by 6 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; JBGS now leads by 9. 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 2026-10-14, when JBGS moved ahead of HPP.
What would change the HPP vs JBGS verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: HPP closes the Momentum gap — currently 34 points behind, the largest single contributor to JBGS's edge; HPP's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; JBGS's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 3 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 HPP and JBGS?
HPP: 2 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted. JBGS: 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 HPP is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On JBGS it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare HPP and JBGS 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.