IRM vs PLD Stock Comparison
Compare IRM and PLD across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between IRM and PLD?
IRM leads the current stock comparison as Iron Mountain Incorporated, with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Iron Mountain Incorporated vs Prologis, Inc.
IRM leads
IRM leads by 6 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Quality.
Fragile: 4 of 6 evidence groups support IRM, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Iron Mountain Incorporated
Prologis, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors IRM over PLD, 44 versus 38 as of Sep 11, 2026. IRM's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and quality, while PLD holds the stronger risk resilience profile. IRM also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor IRM today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. IRM lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 6 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Iron Mountain Incorporated and Prologis, 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 IRM and PLD 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 Resilience38 vs 59PLD +21
- Value48 vs 34IRM +14
- Quality54 vs 41IRM +13
- Momentum30 vs 25IRM +5
4 of 6 evidence groups favor IRM. IRM’s edge is concentrated in value and quality; PLD 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: Momentum -4
New signals
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum -1
New signals
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
IRM's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — IRM and PLD both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
IRM (Iron Mountain Incorporated): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and quality.
PLD (Prologis, Inc.): the counter-case, on risk resilience, fundamentals.
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
IRMIRM on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
PLDPLD on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
IRMIRM on the peer-relative Value factor, by 14 points.
Momentum
IRMIRM on the Momentum factor, by 5 points.
Lower downside
PLDPLD on Risk Resilience, by 21 points.
Analyst upside
IRMIRM on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
Where the systematic read and the analyst consensus line up — and where they do not.
| Measure | IRM | PLD | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +25.5% | +13.9% | IRM has more room |
| Target dispersion | +10.4% | +22.6% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 3 | 13 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor IRM. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | IRM | 44 vs 38 |
| Fundamentals | PLDon balance | revenue growth 4.8% vs 5.6%; EPS growth -29.2% vs 8.6%; TTM ROE -38.4% vs 7.9%; gross margin 54.2% vs 29.1%; operating margin 18.8% vs 38.4% — PLD takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | IRM | Value 48 vs 34 |
| Technicals | IRM | Price vs 50-day -5.2% vs -4.4%; vs 200-day 2.8% vs -1.2% |
| Risk Resilience | PLD | Risk Resilience 38 vs 59 |
| Analyst expectations | IRM | Target upside 25.5% vs 13.9% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of IRM and PLD 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 6 points.
- 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 IRM.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10IRM lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 6 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- IRM +6
- 44 vs 38
- 7 sessions ago
- IRM +2
- 43 vs 41
- 30 sessions ago
- IRM +5
- 44 vs 39
- 90 sessions ago
- PLD +2
- 41 vs 43
The lead changed hands 9 times in this window, most recently on Sep 2 when IRM moved ahead of PLD.
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 / 1 bearish, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (10.53%)
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
2 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (3.23%)
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
IRM 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.
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +2.02%, AIQ -1 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +1%, AIQ 0 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.
- 1PLD closes the Value gap — currently 14 points behind, the largest single contributor to IRM's edge.
- 2PLD's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3IRM's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 1 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
PLD leads on balance| Metric | IRM | PLD |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 4.8% | 5.6% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -29.2% | 8.6% |
| Gross margin | 54.2% | 29.1% |
| Operating margin | 18.8% | 38.4% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -38.4% | 7.9% |
| Debt to equity | -15.31 | 0.68 |
Performance
IRM leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | IRM | PLD |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 0.9% | -1.6% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -9.2% | -4.5% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -8.5% | -4.4% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 4.9% | 0% |
| Year to date | 36.1% | 5.3% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 22.1% | 18.9% |
Technicals
IRM has the stronger structure| Metric | IRM | PLD |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 28.8 | 32 |
| ADX (14) | 15.7 | 19.4 |
| Price vs 50-day | -5.2% | -4.4% |
| Price vs 200-day | 2.8% | -1.2% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 30.2% | 14.8% |
Risk
PLD is the more resilient| Metric | IRM | PLD |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.08 | 0.46 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.52 | 0.77 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.79 | 1.22 |
| Max drawdown | -25.9% | -10.4% |
| Current drawdown | -15.2% | -10.4% |
| Annualized volatility | 32.8% | 21.7% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.6% | -2.2% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, IRM or PLD?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, IRM is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 44 against PLD's 38. The edge comes from value and quality. PLD 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 IRM or PLD the better buy right now?
IRM carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 4 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor IRM over PLD?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. PLD leads Risk Resilience by 21 points; IRM leads Value by 14 points; IRM leads Quality by 13 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, IRM or PLD?
Analyst price targets imply +25.5% upside for IRM and +13.9% for PLD, so the Street currently favors IRM. 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, IRM or PLD?
IRM is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. IRM on the peer-relative Value factor, by 14 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, IRM or PLD?
PLD 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, IRM or PLD?
IRM on the Momentum factor, by 5 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, IRM or PLD?
PLD is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. PLD on Risk Resilience, by 21 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 IRM more profitable than PLD?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 54.2% vs 29.1%; operating margin 18.8% vs 38.4%; ttm roe -38.4% vs 7.9%. IRM leads on one measure and PLD 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 IRM's lead over PLD getting stronger or weaker?
IRM lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 6 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 9 times in that window, most recently on 2026-09-02, when IRM moved ahead of PLD.
What would change the IRM vs PLD verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: PLD closes the Value gap — currently 14 points behind, the largest single contributor to IRM's edge; PLD's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it; IRM's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 1 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 IRM and PLD?
IRM: 2 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. PLD: 2 bullish / 2 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 IRM is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On PLD it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare IRM and PLD 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.