HPP vs PDM Stock Comparison
Hudson Pacific Properties, Inc. vs Piedmont Office Realty Trust, Inc.
PDM leads
PDM leads by 13 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Risk Resilience, and the lead has widened from 8 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors HPP on target upside.
Stable: 5 of 6 evidence groups support PDM, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Hudson Pacific Properties, Inc.
Piedmont Office Realty Trust, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors PDM over HPP, 52 versus 39 as of Sep 5, 2026. PDM's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and risk resilience. PDM also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors HPP. 5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor PDM today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. PDM lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 8 to 13 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Hudson Pacific Properties, Inc. and Piedmont Office Realty Trust, Inc. across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Compare HPP and PDM 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%38 vs 68PDM +30
- Risk Resilience15%22 vs 50PDM +28
- Value30%65 vs 73PDM +8
- Quality30%23 vs 20Even
5 of 6 evidence groups favor PDM. PDM’s edge is concentrated in momentum and risk resilience.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-03, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-02.
Largest factor move: Momentum +1
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum +4
No new signals fired.
PDM's lead widened by 1 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — HPP and PDM both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
PDM (Piedmont Office Realty Trust, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and risk resilience.
HPP (Hudson Pacific Properties, Inc.): the counter-case, on analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 59.8% against 21.3%.
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
PDMPDM on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
PDMPDM on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
PDMPDM on the peer-relative Value factor, by 8 points.
Momentum
PDMPDM on the Momentum factor, by 30 points.
Lower downside
PDMPDM on Risk Resilience, by 28 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 PDM, analyst targets favor HPP. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | HPP | PDM | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +9.7% | +6.7% | HPP has more room |
| Target dispersion | +75.9% | +9.7% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Hold | 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.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor PDM. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | PDM | 39 vs 52 |
| Fundamentals | PDMon balance | EPS growth -97.6% vs 11.3%; TTM ROE -18.6% vs -5.4%; gross margin 29.5% vs 28.6% — PDM takes 2 of 3 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | PDM | Value 65 vs 73 |
| Technicals | PDM | Price vs 50-day -13.5% vs 0.9%; vs 200-day 16.1% vs 14.8% |
| Risk Resilience | PDM | Risk Resilience 22 vs 50 |
| Analyst expectations | HPP | Target upside 9.7% vs 6.7% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of HPP and PDM and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion rests on a wide gap and broad agreement. It is unlikely to turn on a single session.
- The AIQ gap is wide at 13 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 5 of 6 covered evidence groups point the same way. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (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 PDM.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 22 – Sep 3PDM lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 8 to 13 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- PDM +13
- 39 vs 52
- 7 sessions ago
- PDM +11
- 41 vs 52
- 30 sessions ago
- PDM +8
- 41 vs 49
- 90 sessions ago
- PDM +5
- 44 vs 49
The lead changed hands once in this window, most recently on May 14 when HPP moved ahead of PDM.
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 / 2 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (32.81%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (6.47%)
3 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (13.65%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
PDM 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 -1.02%, AIQ 0 points).
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -0.1%, 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 30 points behind, the largest single contributor to PDM's edge.
- 2HPP's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3PDM's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 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
PDM leads on balance| Metric | HPP | PDM |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 3.5% | 0.6% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -97.6% | 11.3% |
| Gross margin | 29.5% | 28.6% |
| Operating margin | -0.3% | 23.3% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -18.6% | -5.4% |
| Debt to equity | 1.33 | 1.54 |
Technicals
PDM has the stronger structure| Metric | HPP | PDM |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 38.5 | 57.4 |
| ADX (14) | 16.9 | 11.9 |
| Price vs 50-day | -13.5% | 0.9% |
| Price vs 200-day | 16.1% | 14.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 59.8% | 21.3% |
Risk
PDM is the more resilient| Metric | HPP | PDM |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.11 | 0.65 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.35 | 0.43 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.61 | 0.61 |
| Max drawdown | -74.4% | -29.5% |
| Current drawdown | -40.7% | -2.7% |
| Annualized volatility | 69.2% | 31.2% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -6.6% | -3.2% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, HPP or PDM?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, PDM is the stronger of the two as of Sep 5, 2026, scoring 52 against HPP's 39. The edge comes from momentum and risk resilience. 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 PDM the better buy right now?
PDM carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 5, 2026, and the comparison is rated Stable — 5 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Stable rating means the gap is wide and the evidence is broad, so the conclusion is unlikely to turn on a single session.
Why does the AIQ Score favor PDM over HPP?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. PDM leads Momentum by 30 points; PDM leads Risk Resilience by 28 points; PDM leads Value by 8 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, HPP or PDM?
Analyst price targets imply +9.7% upside for HPP and +6.7% for PDM, so the Street currently favors HPP. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors PDM. 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 PDM?
PDM is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. PDM on the peer-relative Value factor, by 8 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, HPP or PDM?
PDM 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 PDM?
PDM on the Momentum factor, by 30 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, HPP or PDM?
PDM is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. PDM on Risk Resilience, by 28 points. The Risk Resilience factor weights 15% of the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is HPP more profitable than PDM?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 29.5% vs 28.6%; operating margin -0.3% vs 23.3%; ttm roe -18.6% vs -5.4%. Each name leads 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 PDM's lead over HPP getting stronger or weaker?
PDM lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 8 to 13 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-22 and 2026-09-03. The lead has changed hands once in that window, most recently on 2026-05-14, when HPP moved ahead of PDM.
What would change the HPP vs PDM verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: HPP closes the Momentum gap — currently 30 points behind, the largest single contributor to PDM's edge; HPP's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; PDM's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 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 HPP and PDM?
HPP: 1 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted. PDM: 3 bullish / 1 bearish, 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 PDM it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare HPP and PDM 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.