JBGS vs KIM Stock Comparison
KIM currently leads JBGS in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 53 vs 45. The clearest difference is quality, while JBGS has the stronger value profile.
What is the main difference between JBGS and KIM?
KIM leads the current stock comparison as Kimco Realty Corporation, with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
JBG SMITH Properties vs Kimco Realty Corporation
KIM leads
KIM leads by 8 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Risk Resilience.
Competitive: 4 of 6 evidence groups support KIM, and its current signal state is conflicted.
JBG SMITH Properties
Kimco Realty Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors KIM over JBGS, 53 versus 45 as of Oct 21, 2026. KIM's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and risk resilience, while JBGS holds the stronger value profile. KIM also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor KIM today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. KIM lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 8 points over 30 sessions.
Compare JBG SMITH Properties and Kimco Realty Corporation 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 JBGS and KIM 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.
- Quality9 vs 48KIM +39
- Risk Resilience52 vs 79KIM +27
- Value65 vs 42JBGS +23
- Momentum59 vs 56Even
4 of 6 evidence groups favor KIM. KIM’s edge is concentrated in quality and risk resilience; JBGS 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 +4
New signals
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum +9
New signals
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
KIM's lead widened by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — JBGS and KIM both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
KIM (Kimco Realty Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and risk resilience.
JBGS (JBG SMITH Properties): the counter-case, on value, valuation — but at materially higher volatility, 31.6% against 13.8%.
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
KIMKIM on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
KIMKIM on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
JBGSJBGS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 23 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
KIMKIM on Risk Resilience, by 27 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 | JBGS | KIM | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +16.7% | +16% | Level |
| Target dispersion | +8% | +22.8% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Sell | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 2 | 11 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | JBGS | KIM |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | -4.90% | 13.34% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $0.900 | $0.540 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $0.700 | $1.010 |
| Years increased | 1 | 4 |
| No cut in window | No (2) | No (1) |
| Cohort rank | not ranked | not ranked |
KIM grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 13.34% a year against JBGS's -4.90%.
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 KIM. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | KIM | 45 vs 53 |
| Fundamentals | KIMon balance | revenue growth 1.4% vs -1.3%; EPS growth -221.9% vs 4.3%; TTM ROE -13.3% vs 5.8%; gross margin 20.3% vs 54.8% — KIM takes 3 of 4 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | JBGS | Value 65 vs 42 |
| Technicals | KIM | Price vs 50-day -5.3% vs -1.8%; vs 200-day -22.5% vs -1.7% |
| Risk Resilience | KIM | Risk Resilience 52 vs 79 |
| Analyst expectations | Even | Target upside 16.7% vs 16% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of JBGS and KIM and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
- The AIQ gap is moderate at 8 points.
- The lead has been steady session to session. (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 KIM.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20KIM lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 8 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- KIM +8
- 45 vs 53
- 7 sessions ago
- KIM +8
- 43 vs 51
- 30 sessions ago
- KIM +9
- 36 vs 45
- 90 sessions ago
- KIM +1
- 46 vs 47
The lead changed hands 4 times in this window, most recently on Sep 1 when KIM moved ahead of JBGS.
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 / 3 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only JBGS
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
1 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only KIM
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
Both carry 4 more signals that do not separate them: Bollinger Band Squeeze, Death Cross Active, Downtrend Structure Active, MACD Bullish Crossover.
KIM 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 down while the AIQ Score moved up 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -2.46%, AIQ +1 points).
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 2 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -1.22%, AIQ +2 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.
- 1JBGS closes the Quality gap — currently 39 points behind, the largest single contributor to KIM's edge.
- 2JBGS's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3KIM'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
KIM leads on balance| Metric | JBGS | KIM |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 1.4% | -1.3% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -221.9% | 4.3% |
| Gross margin | 20.3% | 54.8% |
| Operating margin | 0.3% | 35.8% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -13.3% | 5.8% |
| Debt to equity | 2.41 | 0.85 |
Performance
KIM leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | JBGS | KIM |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -1.5% | 2.4% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -0.3% | 2% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -23.5% | -12% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -29.6% | -2.9% |
| Year to date | -35.4% | 13.5% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -45.9% | 6.4% |
Technicals
KIM has the stronger structure| Metric | JBGS | KIM |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 70.1 | 66.8 |
| ADX (14) | 20.4 | 28.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | -5.3% | -1.8% |
| Price vs 200-day | -22.5% | -1.7% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 31.6% | 13.8% |
Risk
KIM is the more resilient| Metric | JBGS | KIM |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.25 | 0.06 |
| Sharpe ratio | -1.8 | 0.16 |
| Sortino ratio | -2.2 | 0.28 |
| Max drawdown | -53.6% | -17.2% |
| Current drawdown | -49.2% | -12.8% |
| Annualized volatility | 33.5% | 17.6% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.1% | -1.8% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, JBGS or KIM?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, KIM is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 53 against JBGS's 45. The edge comes from quality and risk resilience. JBGS 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 JBGS or KIM the better buy right now?
KIM carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 4 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Competitive rating means the two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
Why does the AIQ Score favor KIM over JBGS?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. KIM leads Quality by 39 points; KIM leads Risk Resilience by 27 points; JBGS leads Value by 23 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, JBGS or KIM?
Analyst price targets imply +16.7% upside for JBGS and +16% for KIM. 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, JBGS or KIM?
JBGS is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. JBGS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 23 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, JBGS or KIM?
KIM 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, JBGS or KIM?
The two are level on Momentum. 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, JBGS or KIM?
KIM is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. KIM on Risk Resilience, by 27 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 JBGS more profitable than KIM?
KIM leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 20.3% vs 54.8%; operating margin 0.3% vs 35.8%; ttm roe -13.3% vs 5.8%.
Is KIM's lead over JBGS getting stronger or weaker?
KIM lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 8 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has changed hands 4 times in that window, most recently on 2026-09-01, when KIM moved ahead of JBGS.
What would change the JBGS vs KIM verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: JBGS closes the Quality gap — currently 39 points behind, the largest single contributor to KIM's edge; JBGS's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; KIM'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 JBGS and KIM?
JBGS: 1 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. KIM: 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 JBGS is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On KIM it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare JBGS and KIM 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.