SLG vs VNO Stock Comparison
SL Green Realty Corp. vs Vornado Realty Trust
SLG leads
SLG leads by 10 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Value, and the lead has widened from 7 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors VNO on target upside.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support SLG, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
SL Green Realty Corp.
Vornado Realty Trust
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors SLG over VNO, 49 versus 39 as of Sep 5, 2026. SLG's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and value, while VNO holds the stronger risk resilience profile. SLG also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors VNO. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor SLG today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. SLG lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 7 to 10 points over 30 sessions.
Compare SL Green Realty Corp. and Vornado Realty Trust across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Compare SLG and VNO 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.
- Momentum25%55 vs 35SLG +20
- Value30%63 vs 46SLG +17
- Risk Resilience15%48 vs 55VNO +7
- Quality30%30 vs 27Even
3 of 6 evidence groups favor SLG. SLG’s edge is concentrated in momentum and value; VNO keeps a meaningful risk resilience edge.
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 +3
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum +2
No new signals fired.
SLG's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — SLG and VNO both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
SLG (SL Green Realty Corp.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and value.
VNO (Vornado Realty Trust): the counter-case, on risk resilience, analyst expectations.
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
SLGSLG on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
VNOVNO on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
SLGSLG on the peer-relative Value factor, by 17 points.
Momentum
SLGSLG on the Momentum factor, by 20 points.
Lower downside
VNOVNO on Risk Resilience, by 7 points.
Analyst upside
VNOVNO on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors SLG, analyst targets favor VNO. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | SLG | VNO | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +1.2% | +3.1% | VNO has more room |
| Target dispersion | +58.7% | +39.8% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 8 | 9 | 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 SLG. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | SLG | 49 vs 39 |
| Fundamentals | Even | EPS growth 68.3% vs 173.2%; TTM ROE -4.6% vs 1.1%; gross margin 51.1% vs 42.6%; operating margin 40.9% vs 10.9% |
| Valuation | SLG | Value 63 vs 46 |
| Technicals | SLG | Price vs 50-day 3.1% vs -6.3%; vs 200-day 19.5% vs 9.4% |
| Risk Resilience | VNO | Risk Resilience 48 vs 55 |
| Analyst expectations | VNO | Target upside 1.2% vs 3.1% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of SLG and VNO 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 10 points.
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 SLG.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 22 – Sep 3SLG lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 7 to 10 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- SLG +10
- 49 vs 39
- 7 sessions ago
- SLG +13
- 51 vs 38
- 30 sessions ago
- SLG +7
- 50 vs 43
- 90 sessions ago
- SLG +4
- 48 vs 44
The lead has not changed hands in this window.
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.
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
1 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (17.00%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
SLG 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 and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +1.18%, AIQ +1 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.14%, 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.
- 1VNO closes the Momentum gap — currently 20 points behind, the largest single contributor to SLG's edge.
- 2VNO's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 3SLG's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 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 | SLG | VNO |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 4.3% | 0.7% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 68.3% | 173.2% |
| Gross margin | 51.1% | 42.6% |
| Operating margin | 40.9% | 10.9% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -4.6% | 1.1% |
| Debt to equity | 1.51 | 1.57 |
Technicals
SLG has the stronger structure| Metric | SLG | VNO |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 44.7 | 35.4 |
| ADX (14) | 33 | 12.8 |
| Price vs 50-day | 3.1% | -6.3% |
| Price vs 200-day | 19.5% | 9.4% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 29.7% | 26.9% |
Risk
VNO is the more resilient| Metric | SLG | VNO |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.92 | 1 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.09 | -0.18 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.15 | -0.31 |
| Max drawdown | -46.2% | -42.5% |
| Current drawdown | -16.4% | -15% |
| Annualized volatility | 38% | 32.6% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.6% | -3.5% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, SLG or VNO?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, SLG is the stronger of the two as of Sep 5, 2026, scoring 49 against VNO's 39. The edge comes from momentum and value. VNO 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 SLG or VNO the better buy right now?
SLG carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 5, 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 SLG over VNO?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. SLG leads Momentum by 20 points; SLG leads Value by 17 points; VNO leads Risk Resilience by 7 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, SLG or VNO?
Analyst price targets imply +1.2% upside for SLG and +3.1% for VNO, so the Street currently favors VNO. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors SLG. 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, SLG or VNO?
SLG is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. SLG on the peer-relative Value factor, by 17 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, SLG or VNO?
VNO 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, SLG or VNO?
SLG on the Momentum factor, by 20 points. 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, SLG or VNO?
VNO is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. VNO on Risk Resilience, by 7 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 SLG more profitable than VNO?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 51.1% vs 42.6%; operating margin 40.9% vs 10.9%; ttm roe -4.6% vs 1.1%. SLG leads on two measures and VNO 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 SLG's lead over VNO getting stronger or weaker?
SLG lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 7 to 10 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-22 and 2026-09-03. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the SLG vs VNO verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: VNO closes the Momentum gap — currently 20 points behind, the largest single contributor to SLG's edge; VNO's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it; SLG's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; 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 SLG and VNO?
SLG: 3 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. VNO: 1 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 SLG is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On VNO it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare SLG and VNO 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.