INVH vs NXRT Stock Comparison
INVH currently leads NXRT in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 49 vs 41. The clearest difference is risk resilience, while NXRT has the stronger value profile.
What is the main difference between INVH and NXRT?
INVH leads the current stock comparison as Invitation Homes Inc., with the clearest separation coming from risk resilience and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Invitation Homes Inc. vs NexPoint Residential Trust, Inc.
INVH leads
INVH leads by 8 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Momentum, and the lead has widened from 4 points over 30 sessions.
Stable: 4 of 6 evidence groups support INVH, its lead is widening, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Invitation Homes Inc.
NexPoint Residential Trust, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors INVH over NXRT, 49 versus 41 as of Oct 21, 2026. INVH's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and momentum, while NXRT holds the stronger value profile. INVH also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor INVH today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability. INVH lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 4 to 8 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Invitation Homes 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 INVH 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.
- Risk Resilience73 vs 28INVH +45
- Value43 vs 63NXRT +20
- Momentum50 vs 35INVH +15
- Quality43 vs 30INVH +13
4 of 6 evidence groups favor INVH. INVH’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and momentum; 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 +6
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +2
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 6 active signals are unchanged.
INVH's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — INVH and NXRT both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
INVH (Invitation Homes Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and momentum.
NXRT (NexPoint Residential Trust, Inc.): the counter-case, on value, valuation — but at materially higher volatility, 47.3% against 17.9%.
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
INVHINVH on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
INVHINVH on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
NXRTNXRT on the peer-relative Value factor, by 20 points.
Momentum
INVHINVH on the Momentum factor, by 15 points.
Lower downside
INVHINVH on Risk Resilience, by 45 points.
Analyst upside
EvenAnalyst targets are level or not covered for both names.
AIQ vs Wall Street
Where the systematic read and the analyst consensus line up — and where they do not.
| Measure | INVH | NXRT | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +17.2% | +17.5% | Level |
| Target dispersion | +25.5% | +37.6% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 12 | 2 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | INVH | NXRT |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 14.29% | 10.00% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $0.600 | $1.279 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $1.170 | $2.060 |
| Years increased | 4 | 5 |
| No cut in window | No (1) | Yes |
| Cohort rank | not ranked | #10 |
INVH grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 14.29% a year against NXRT's 10.00%. NXRT never reduced its regular dividend in the window; INVH 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
4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor INVH. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | INVH | 49 vs 41 |
| Fundamentals | INVHon balance | revenue growth 1.8% vs 1.7%; EPS growth 42.3% vs -22.2%; TTM ROE 7.1% vs -11.8%; gross margin 44.4% vs 90.8%; operating margin 30.2% vs 11.1% — INVH takes 3 of 4 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | NXRT | Value 43 vs 63 |
| Technicals | INVH | Price vs 50-day -4% vs -16.7%; vs 200-day -2.9% vs -29.9% |
| Risk Resilience | INVH | Risk Resilience 73 vs 28 |
| Analyst expectations | Even | Target upside 17.2% vs 17.5% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of INVH and NXRT 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 moderate at 8 points.
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 INVH.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20INVH lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 4 to 8 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- INVH +8
- 49 vs 41
- 7 sessions ago
- INVH +7
- 48 vs 41
- 30 sessions ago
- INVH +4
- 43 vs 39
- 90 sessions ago
- INVH +10
- 46 vs 36
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 INVH
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (0.45%)
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 is down while the AIQ Score moved up 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -0.7%, AIQ +1 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 45 points behind, the largest single contributor to INVH's edge.
- 2NXRT's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3INVH'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
INVH leads on balance| Metric | INVH | NXRT |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 1.8% | 1.7% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 42.3% | -22.2% |
| Gross margin | 44.4% | 90.8% |
| Operating margin | 30.2% | 11.1% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 7.1% | -11.8% |
| Debt to equity | 0.94 | 6.41 |
Performance
INVH leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | INVH | NXRT |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 1.5% | -4% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -0.5% | -14.8% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -8.5% | -29% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 0.2% | -30.1% |
| Year to date | -2.8% | -38.5% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -5.1% | -40.1% |
Technicals
INVH has the stronger structure| Metric | INVH | NXRT |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 59.1 | 42 |
| ADX (14) | 35.2 | 42.4 |
| Price vs 50-day | -4% | -16.7% |
| Price vs 200-day | -2.9% | -29.9% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 17.9% | 47.3% |
Risk
INVH is the more resilient| Metric | INVH | NXRT |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.08 | 0.33 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.34 | -1.59 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.53 | -2.52 |
| Max drawdown | -15.6% | -44.2% |
| Current drawdown | -11.7% | -42.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 21.1% | 31.1% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2% | -3.2% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, INVH or NXRT?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, INVH is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 49 against NXRT's 41. The edge comes from risk resilience and momentum. 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 INVH or NXRT the better buy right now?
INVH carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 2026, and the comparison is rated Stable — 4 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 INVH over NXRT?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. INVH leads Risk Resilience by 45 points; NXRT leads Value by 20 points; INVH leads Momentum by 15 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, INVH or NXRT?
Analyst price targets imply +17.2% upside for INVH and +17.5% for NXRT. The model and the Street agree here, which is a broader base of evidence than either alone. Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions, and dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Which is better value, INVH or NXRT?
NXRT is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. NXRT on the peer-relative Value factor, by 20 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, INVH or NXRT?
INVH 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, INVH or NXRT?
INVH on the Momentum factor, by 15 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, INVH or NXRT?
INVH is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. INVH on Risk Resilience, by 45 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 INVH more profitable than NXRT?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 44.4% vs 90.8%; operating margin 30.2% vs 11.1%; ttm roe 7.1% vs -11.8%. INVH 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 INVH's lead over NXRT getting stronger or weaker?
INVH lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 4 to 8 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 INVH 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 45 points behind, the largest single contributor to INVH's edge; NXRT's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; INVH'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 INVH and NXRT?
INVH: 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 INVH is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On NXRT it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare INVH 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.