KRC vs SLG Stock Comparison
Kilroy Realty Corporation vs SL Green Realty Corp.
KRC leads
KRC leads by 6 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Risk Resilience, having only recently taken the lead back from SLG.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support KRC, the lead recently changed hands, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Kilroy Realty Corporation
SL Green Realty Corp.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors KRC over SLG, 55 versus 49 as of Sep 4, 2026. KRC's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and risk resilience. KRC also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor KRC today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. KRC lead: Reversed — SLG led by 1 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; KRC now leads by 6.
Compare Kilroy Realty Corporation and SL Green Realty Corp. across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Compare KRC and SLG 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.
- Quality30%42 vs 30KRC +12
- Risk Resilience15%57 vs 48KRC +9
- Value30%67 vs 63KRC +4
- Momentum25%56 vs 55Even
3 of 6 evidence groups favor KRC. KRC’s edge is concentrated in quality and risk resilience.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-03, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-02.
Largest factor move: Momentum +13
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum +3
No new signals fired.
KRC's lead widened by 2 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — KRC and SLG both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
KRC (Kilroy Realty Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and risk resilience.
SLG (SL Green Realty Corp.): the counter-case, on technicals — but at materially higher volatility, 29.7% against 20%.
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
KRCKRC on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
KRCKRC on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
KRCKRC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 4 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
KRCKRC on Risk Resilience, by 9 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 | KRC | SLG | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +0.2% | +1.2% | Level |
| Target dispersion | +34.9% | +58.7% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 8 | 8 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor KRC. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | KRC | 55 vs 49 |
| Fundamentals | Even | EPS growth 206.3% vs 68.3%; TTM ROE 3.2% vs -4.6%; gross margin 48.7% vs 51.1%; operating margin 25.1% vs 40.9% |
| Valuation | KRC | Value 67 vs 63 |
| Technicals | SLG | Price vs 50-day -2.3% vs 3.1%; vs 200-day 4% vs 19.5% |
| Risk Resilience | KRC | Risk Resilience 57 vs 48 |
| Analyst expectations | Even | Target upside 0.2% vs 1.2% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of KRC and SLG 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.
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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 KRC.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 22 – Sep 3KRC lead: Reversed — SLG led by 1 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; KRC now leads by 6.
- Today
- KRC +6
- 55 vs 49
- 7 sessions ago
- Level
- 51 vs 51
- 30 sessions ago
- SLG +1
- 49 vs 50
- 90 sessions ago
- KRC +6
- 54 vs 48
The lead changed hands once in this window, most recently on Aug 6 when SLG moved ahead of KRC.
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
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (6.99%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
3 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (17.33%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
SLG 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 and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.49%, AIQ +3 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +1.18%, 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.
- 1SLG closes the Quality gap — currently 12 points behind, the largest single contributor to KRC's edge.
- 2SLG's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3KRC's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict.
- 4A regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, 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
Split| Metric | KRC | SLG |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 0.9% | 4.3% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 206.3% | 68.3% |
| Gross margin | 48.7% | 51.1% |
| Operating margin | 25.1% | 40.9% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 3.2% | -4.6% |
| Debt to equity | 0.89 | 1.51 |
Technicals
SLG has the stronger structure| Metric | KRC | SLG |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 58.8 | 44.7 |
| ADX (14) | 26.4 | 33 |
| Price vs 50-day | -2.3% | 3.1% |
| Price vs 200-day | 4% | 19.5% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 20% | 29.7% |
Risk
KRC is the more resilient| Metric | KRC | SLG |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.61 | 0.92 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.43 | -0.09 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.65 | -0.15 |
| Max drawdown | -37.6% | -46.2% |
| Current drawdown | -16.8% | -16.4% |
| Annualized volatility | 27.9% | 38% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.7% | -3.6% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, KRC or SLG?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, KRC is the stronger of the two as of Sep 4, 2026, scoring 55 against SLG's 49. The edge comes from quality and risk resilience. 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 KRC or SLG the better buy right now?
KRC carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 4, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor KRC over SLG?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. KRC leads Quality by 12 points; KRC leads Risk Resilience by 9 points; KRC leads Value by 4 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, KRC or SLG?
Analyst price targets imply +0.2% upside for KRC and +1.2% for SLG. 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, KRC or SLG?
KRC is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. KRC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 4 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, KRC or SLG?
KRC 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, KRC or SLG?
The two are level on Momentum. Momentum carries 25% of 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, KRC or SLG?
KRC is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. KRC on Risk Resilience, by 9 points. The Risk Resilience factor weights 15% of the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is KRC more profitable than SLG?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 48.7% vs 51.1%; operating margin 25.1% vs 40.9%; ttm roe 3.2% vs -4.6%. KRC leads on one measure and SLG 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 KRC's lead over SLG getting stronger or weaker?
KRC lead: Reversed — SLG led by 1 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; KRC now leads by 6. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-22 and 2026-09-03. The lead has changed hands once in that window, most recently on 2026-08-06, when SLG moved ahead of KRC.
What would change the KRC vs SLG verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: SLG closes the Quality gap — currently 12 points behind, the largest single contributor to KRC's edge; SLG's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; KRC's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict; a regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
What do the current signals say about KRC and SLG?
KRC: 2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. SLG: 3 bullish / 1 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 KRC is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On SLG it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare KRC and SLG with others
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality (30%), Value (30%), Momentum (25%) and Risk (15%). 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.