PSA vs SBRA Stock Comparison
Compare PSA and SBRA across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between PSA and SBRA?
SBRA leads the current stock comparison as Sabra Health Care REIT, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Public Storage vs Sabra Health Care REIT, Inc.
SBRA leads
SBRA leads by 8 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Risk Resilience, having only recently taken the lead back from PSA. Wall Street currently favors PSA on target upside.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support SBRA, the lead recently changed hands, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Public Storage
Sabra Health Care REIT, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors SBRA over PSA, 51 versus 43 as of Sep 11, 2026. SBRA's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and risk resilience, while PSA holds the stronger quality profile. SBRA also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors PSA. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor SBRA today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. SBRA lead: Reversed — PSA led by 8 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; SBRA now leads by 8.
Compare Public Storage and Sabra Health Care REIT, 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 PSA and SBRA 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.
- Momentum17 vs 67SBRA +50
- Quality63 vs 48PSA +15
- Risk Resilience58 vs 69SBRA +11
- Value36 vs 31PSA +5
3 of 6 evidence groups favor SBRA. SBRA’s edge is concentrated in momentum and risk resilience; PSA keeps a meaningful quality edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-10, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-09.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum +1
No new signals fired.
SBRA's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — PSA and SBRA both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
SBRA (Sabra Health Care REIT, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and risk resilience.
PSA (Public Storage): the counter-case, on quality, value, fundamentals.
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
SBRASBRA on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
PSAPSA on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
PSAPSA on the peer-relative Value factor, by 5 points.
Momentum
SBRASBRA on the Momentum factor, by 50 points.
Lower downside
SBRASBRA on Risk Resilience, by 11 points.
Analyst upside
PSAPSA on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors SBRA, analyst targets favor PSA. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | PSA | SBRA | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +10.5% | +7.2% | PSA has more room |
| Target dispersion | +14.3% | +27.3% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 10 | 7 | 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.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor SBRA. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | SBRA | 43 vs 51 |
| Fundamentals | PSAon balance | revenue growth 1.2% vs 6.4%; EPS growth -5.9% vs -162.5%; TTM ROE 22.1% vs 2.3%; gross margin 60.4% vs 72.6%; operating margin 48.3% vs 11.8% — PSA takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | PSA | Value 36 vs 31 |
| Technicals | SBRA | Price vs 50-day -7% vs -0.7%; vs 200-day -1.2% vs 4.7% |
| Risk Resilience | SBRA | Risk Resilience 58 vs 69 |
| Analyst expectations | PSA | Target upside 10.5% vs 7.2% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of PSA and SBRA 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 8 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 SBRA.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10SBRA lead: Reversed — PSA led by 8 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; SBRA now leads by 8.
- Today
- SBRA +8
- 43 vs 51
- 7 sessions ago
- SBRA +6
- 45 vs 51
- 30 sessions ago
- PSA +8
- 55 vs 47
- 90 sessions ago
- PSA +1
- 54 vs 53
The lead changed hands 7 times in this window, most recently on Aug 26 when SBRA moved ahead of PSA.
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 / 2 bearish, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (6.95%)
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
4 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (3.94%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
PSA 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.
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.64%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -1.49%, 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.
- 1PSA closes the Momentum gap — currently 50 points behind, the largest single contributor to SBRA's edge.
- 2PSA's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3SBRA'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
PSA leads on balance| Metric | PSA | SBRA |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 1.2% | 6.4% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -5.9% | -162.5% |
| Gross margin | 60.4% | 72.6% |
| Operating margin | 48.3% | 11.8% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 22.1% | 2.3% |
| Debt to equity | 1.11 | 0.96 |
Performance
SBRA leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | PSA | SBRA |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -2.2% | -0.1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -9% | 3.2% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -9% | 10.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -1.8% | 0.9% |
| Year to date | 13.5% | 10% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 0% | 8.5% |
Technicals
SBRA has the stronger structure| Metric | PSA | SBRA |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 19.8 | 56.5 |
| ADX (14) | 22.2 | 10.2 |
| Price vs 50-day | -7% | -0.7% |
| Price vs 200-day | -1.2% | 4.7% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 17.8% | 15.2% |
Risk
SBRA is the more resilient| Metric | PSA | SBRA |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.38 | -0.21 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.01 | 0.32 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.02 | 0.57 |
| Max drawdown | -17.1% | -16.6% |
| Current drawdown | -10.8% | -7% |
| Annualized volatility | 23.2% | 24.1% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.4% | -2.4% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, PSA or SBRA?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, SBRA is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 51 against PSA's 43. The edge comes from momentum and risk resilience. PSA is not without a case — it holds the better quality 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 PSA or SBRA the better buy right now?
SBRA carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 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 SBRA over PSA?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. SBRA leads Momentum by 50 points; PSA leads Quality by 15 points; SBRA leads Risk Resilience by 11 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, PSA or SBRA?
Analyst price targets imply +10.5% upside for PSA and +7.2% for SBRA, so the Street currently favors PSA. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors SBRA. 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, PSA or SBRA?
PSA is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. PSA on the peer-relative Value factor, by 5 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, PSA or SBRA?
PSA 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, PSA or SBRA?
SBRA on the Momentum factor, by 50 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, PSA or SBRA?
SBRA is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. SBRA on Risk Resilience, by 11 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 PSA more profitable than SBRA?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 60.4% vs 72.6%; operating margin 48.3% vs 11.8%; ttm roe 22.1% vs 2.3%. PSA leads on two measures and SBRA 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 SBRA's lead over PSA getting stronger or weaker?
SBRA lead: Reversed — PSA led by 8 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; SBRA now leads by 8. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has changed hands 7 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-26, when SBRA moved ahead of PSA.
What would change the PSA vs SBRA verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: PSA closes the Momentum gap — currently 50 points behind, the largest single contributor to SBRA's edge; PSA's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it; SBRA'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 PSA and SBRA?
PSA: 2 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted. SBRA: 4 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. 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 PSA is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On SBRA it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare PSA and SBRA 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.