JBGS vs PDM Stock Comparison
PDM currently leads JBGS in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 49 vs 45. The clearest difference is quality, while JBGS has the stronger risk resilience profile.
What is the main difference between JBGS and PDM?
PDM leads the current stock comparison as Piedmont Office Realty Trust, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
JBG SMITH Properties vs Piedmont Office Realty Trust, Inc.
PDM leads
PDM leads by 4 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Value, but the lead has narrowed from 8 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors JBGS on target upside.
Competitive: 4 of 6 evidence groups support PDM, its lead is narrowing, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
JBG SMITH Properties
Piedmont Office Realty Trust, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors PDM over JBGS, 49 versus 45 as of Oct 21, 2026. PDM's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and value, while JBGS holds the stronger risk resilience profile. PDM also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors JBGS. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor PDM today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 4 points. PDM lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 8 to 4 points over 30 sessions.
Compare JBG SMITH Properties and Piedmont Office Realty 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 JBGS 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.
- Quality9 vs 20PDM +11
- Value65 vs 73PDM +8
- Risk Resilience52 vs 47JBGS +5
- Momentum59 vs 57Even
4 of 6 evidence groups favor PDM. PDM’s edge is concentrated in quality and value; JBGS keeps a meaningful risk resilience 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 +8
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 2 active signals are unchanged.
PDM's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — JBGS 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 quality and value.
JBGS (JBG SMITH Properties): the counter-case, on risk resilience, analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 31.6% against 26.3%.
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 most heavily.
Growth
PDMPDM on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
PDMPDM on the peer-relative Value factor, by 8 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
JBGSJBGS on Risk Resilience, by 5 points.
Analyst upside
JBGSJBGS 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 JBGS. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | JBGS | PDM | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +16.7% | +13.5% | JBGS has more room |
| Target dispersion | +8% | +9.5% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Sell | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 2 | 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.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | JBGS | PDM |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | -4.90% | -31.68% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $0.900 | $0.840 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $0.700 | $0.125 |
| Years increased | 1 | 1 |
| No cut in window | No (2) | No (4) |
| Cohort rank | not ranked | not ranked |
JBGS grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — -4.90% a year against PDM's -31.68%.
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 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 | 45 vs 49 |
| Fundamentals | PDMon balance | revenue growth 1.4% vs 0.6%; EPS growth -221.9% vs 11.3%; TTM ROE -13.3% vs -5.4%; gross margin 20.3% vs 28.6% — PDM takes 3 of 4 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | PDM | Value 65 vs 73 |
| Technicals | PDM | Price vs 50-day -5.3% vs -0.9%; vs 200-day -22.5% vs 8% |
| Risk Resilience | JBGS | Risk Resilience 52 vs 47 |
| Analyst expectations | JBGS | Target upside 16.7% vs 13.5% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of JBGS and PDM 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 narrow at 4 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (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 PDM.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20PDM lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 8 to 4 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- PDM +4
- 45 vs 49
- 7 sessions ago
- PDM +3
- 43 vs 46
- 30 sessions ago
- PDM +8
- 36 vs 44
- 90 sessions ago
- JBGS +1
- 46 vs 45
The lead changed hands 10 times in this window, most recently on Sep 2 when PDM 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
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (25.35%)
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
2 bullish / 0 bearish
Only PDM
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (8.97%)
Both carry 1 more signal that do not separate them: MACD Bullish Crossover.
JBGS 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 -2.46%, AIQ +1 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price 0%, 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.
- 1JBGS closes the Quality gap — currently 11 points behind, the largest single contributor to PDM's edge.
- 2JBGS's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3PDM's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 4 points over 30 sessions, and a further 4-point move would eliminate PDM's advantage entirely.
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 | JBGS | PDM |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 1.4% | 0.6% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -221.9% | 11.3% |
| Gross margin | 20.3% | 28.6% |
| Operating margin | 0.3% | 23.3% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -13.3% | -5.4% |
| Debt to equity | 2.41 | 1.54 |
Performance
PDM leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | JBGS | PDM |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -1.5% | 1.6% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -0.3% | -1.3% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -23.5% | -3.3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -29.6% | 14.5% |
| Year to date | -35.4% | 10.9% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -45.9% | 13.5% |
Technicals
PDM has the stronger structure| Metric | JBGS | PDM |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 70.1 | 60.6 |
| ADX (14) | 20.4 | 23.7 |
| Price vs 50-day | -5.3% | -0.9% |
| Price vs 200-day | -22.5% | 8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 31.6% | 26.3% |
Risk
JBGS is the more resilient| Metric | JBGS | PDM |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.25 | 0.68 |
| Sharpe ratio | -1.8 | 0.43 |
| Sortino ratio | -2.2 | 0.64 |
| Max drawdown | -53.6% | -27.9% |
| Current drawdown | -49.2% | -7.1% |
| Annualized volatility | 33.5% | 31.6% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.1% | -3.3% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, JBGS or PDM?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, PDM is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 49 against JBGS's 45. The edge comes from quality and value. JBGS 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 JBGS or PDM the better buy right now?
PDM 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 PDM over JBGS?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. PDM leads Quality by 11 points; PDM leads Value by 8 points; JBGS leads Risk Resilience by 5 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, JBGS or PDM?
Analyst price targets imply +16.7% upside for JBGS and +13.5% for PDM, so the Street currently favors JBGS. 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, JBGS 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, JBGS 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, JBGS or PDM?
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 PDM?
JBGS is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. JBGS on Risk Resilience, by 5 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 PDM?
PDM leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 20.3% vs 28.6%; operating margin 0.3% vs 23.3%; ttm roe -13.3% vs -5.4%.
Is PDM's lead over JBGS getting stronger or weaker?
PDM lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 8 to 4 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 10 times in that window, most recently on 2026-09-02, when PDM moved ahead of JBGS.
What would change the JBGS vs PDM verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: JBGS closes the Quality gap — currently 11 points behind, the largest single contributor to PDM's edge; JBGS's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; PDM's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 4 points over 30 sessions, and a further 4-point move would eliminate PDM's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about JBGS and PDM?
JBGS: 1 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. PDM: 2 bullish / 0 bearish. 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 PDM it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare JBGS and PDM 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.