HST vs IIPR Stock Comparison
Compare HST and IIPR across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between HST and IIPR?
IIPR leads the current stock comparison as Innovative Industrial Properties, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Host Hotels & Resorts, Inc. vs Innovative Industrial Properties, Inc.
IIPR leads
IIPR leads by 5 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Momentum. Wall Street currently favors HST on target upside.
Fragile: 2 of 6 evidence groups support IIPR, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Host Hotels & Resorts, Inc.
Innovative Industrial Properties, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors IIPR over HST, 56 versus 51 as of Sep 11, 2026. IIPR's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and momentum, while HST holds the stronger risk resilience profile. IIPR also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors HST. 2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor IIPR today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 5 points. IIPR lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 5 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Host Hotels & Resorts, Inc. and Innovative Industrial Properties, 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 HST and IIPR 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.
- Quality39 vs 61IIPR +22
- Risk Resilience75 vs 61HST +14
- Momentum32 vs 41IIPR +9
- Value68 vs 60HST +8
2 of 6 evidence groups favor IIPR. IIPR’s edge is concentrated in quality and momentum; HST keeps a meaningful risk resilience edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-10, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-09.
Largest factor move: Risk Resilience +1
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum -14
No new signals fired.
IIPR's lead narrowed by 3 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — HST and IIPR both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
IIPR (Innovative Industrial Properties, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and momentum.
HST (Host Hotels & Resorts, Inc.): the counter-case, on risk resilience, value, valuation.
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
IIPRIIPR on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
IIPRIIPR on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
HSTHST on the peer-relative Value factor, by 8 points.
Momentum
IIPRIIPR on the Momentum factor, by 9 points.
Lower downside
HSTHST on Risk Resilience, by 14 points.
Analyst upside
HSTHST on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors IIPR, analyst targets favor HST. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | HST | IIPR | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +12.5% | -21.8% | HST has more room |
| Target dispersion | +16% | 0% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 8 | 1 | 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
2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor IIPR. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | IIPR | 51 vs 56 |
| Fundamentals | IIPRon balance | EPS growth -52.1% vs 33.7%; TTM ROE 15.5% vs 7.4%; gross margin 15.8% vs 62.9%; operating margin 14.4% vs 52.3% — IIPR takes 3 of 4 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | HST | Value 68 vs 60 |
| Technicals | HST | Price vs 50-day -4.8% vs -5.5%; vs 200-day 5.4% vs 1.8% |
| Risk Resilience | HST | Risk Resilience 75 vs 61 |
| Analyst expectations | HST | Target upside 12.5% vs -21.8% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of HST and IIPR 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 5 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 2 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 IIPR.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10IIPR lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 5 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- IIPR +5
- 51 vs 56
- 7 sessions ago
- IIPR +8
- 52 vs 60
- 30 sessions ago
- IIPR +4
- 49 vs 53
- 90 sessions ago
- IIPR +8
- 53 vs 61
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on Jul 22 when HST moved ahead of IIPR.
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 / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (11.18%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (8.94%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
HST 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.
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.45%, AIQ 0 points).
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 3 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +1.17%, AIQ -3 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.
- 1HST closes the Quality gap — currently 22 points behind, the largest single contributor to IIPR's edge.
- 2HST's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 3IIPR'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
IIPR leads on balance| Metric | HST | IIPR |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -0.3% | -8.2% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -52.1% | 33.7% |
| Gross margin | 15.8% | 62.9% |
| Operating margin | 14.4% | 52.3% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 15.5% | 7.4% |
| Debt to equity | 0.88 | 0.33 |
Performance
HST leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | HST | IIPR |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 0.1% | -2.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -2.9% | -3.7% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -7.6% | -4.4% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 15.4% | 3.5% |
| Year to date | 24.9% | 17.4% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 27.3% | -1.3% |
Technicals
HST has the stronger structure| Metric | HST | IIPR |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 30.9 | 41.1 |
| ADX (14) | 29.2 | 43.8 |
| Price vs 50-day | -4.8% | -5.5% |
| Price vs 200-day | 5.4% | 1.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 15.6% | 19.9% |
Risk
HST is the more resilient| Metric | HST | IIPR |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.65 | 0.69 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.92 | 0.03 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.37 | 0.05 |
| Max drawdown | -15.3% | -23.5% |
| Current drawdown | -13.3% | -14% |
| Annualized volatility | 25.3% | 38.4% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.5% | -3.5% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, HST or IIPR?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, IIPR is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 56 against HST's 51. The edge comes from quality and momentum. HST 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 HST or IIPR the better buy right now?
IIPR carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 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 5 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor IIPR over HST?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. IIPR leads Quality by 22 points; HST leads Risk Resilience by 14 points; IIPR leads Momentum by 9 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, HST or IIPR?
Analyst price targets imply +12.5% upside for HST and -21.8% for IIPR, so the Street currently favors HST. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors IIPR. 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, HST or IIPR?
HST is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. HST 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, HST or IIPR?
IIPR 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, HST or IIPR?
IIPR on the Momentum factor, by 9 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, HST or IIPR?
HST is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. HST on Risk Resilience, by 14 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 HST more profitable than IIPR?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 15.8% vs 62.9%; operating margin 14.4% vs 52.3%; ttm roe 15.5% vs 7.4%. HST leads on one measure and IIPR 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 IIPR's lead over HST getting stronger or weaker?
IIPR lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 5 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has changed hands 2 times in that window, most recently on 2026-07-22, when HST moved ahead of IIPR.
What would change the HST vs IIPR verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: HST closes the Quality gap — currently 22 points behind, the largest single contributor to IIPR's edge; HST's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it; IIPR'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 HST and IIPR?
HST: 1 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. IIPR: 2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. 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 HST is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On IIPR it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare HST and IIPR 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.