CCL vs CZR Stock Comparison
CCL currently leads CZR in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 52 vs 42. The clearest difference is momentum, while CZR has the stronger risk resilience profile.
What is the main difference between CCL and CZR?
CCL leads the current stock comparison as Carnival Corporation & plc, with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Carnival Corporation & plc vs Caesars Entertainment, Inc.
CCL leads
CCL leads by 10 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Quality, and the lead has widened from 4 points over 30 sessions.
Competitive: 4 of 6 evidence groups support CCL, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Carnival Corporation & plc
Caesars Entertainment, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors CCL over CZR, 52 versus 42 as of Oct 21, 2026. CCL's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and quality, while CZR holds the stronger risk resilience profile. CCL also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor CCL today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. CCL lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 4 to 10 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Carnival Corporation & plc and Caesars Entertainment, 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 CCL and CZR 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.
- Momentum72 vs 32CCL +40
- Risk Resilience19 vs 51CZR +32
- Quality40 vs 25CCL +15
- Value63 vs 63Even
4 of 6 evidence groups favor CCL. CCL’s edge is concentrated in momentum and quality; CZR 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 +8
New signals
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum +1, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
CCL's lead widened by 2 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CCL and CZR both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
CCL (Carnival Corporation & plc): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and quality.
CZR (Caesars Entertainment, Inc.): the counter-case, on risk resilience.
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
CCLCCL on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
CCLCCL on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
CCLCCL on the Momentum factor, by 40 points.
Lower downside
CZRCZR on Risk Resilience, by 32 points.
Analyst upside
CCLCCL on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
Where the systematic read and the analyst consensus line up — and where they do not.
| Measure | CCL | CZR | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +20.9% | +6.4% | CCL has more room |
| Target dispersion | +42.4% | +26% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 14 | 8 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor CCL. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | CCL | 52 vs 42 |
| Fundamentals | CCLon balance | revenue growth 8.1% vs 4.3%; EPS growth 105.3% vs 37.5%; TTM ROE 24.4% vs -12.6%; gross margin 34.4% vs 56.5%; operating margin 16.3% vs 17.5% — CCL takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | Even | Value 63 vs 63 |
| Technicals | CCL | Price vs 50-day 10% vs -2.3%; vs 200-day -0.6% vs 5.9% |
| Risk Resilience | CZR | Risk Resilience 19 vs 51 |
| Analyst expectations | CCL | Target upside 20.9% vs 6.4% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of CCL and CZR 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 10 points.
- 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 CCL.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20CCL lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 4 to 10 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- CCL +10
- 52 vs 42
- 7 sessions ago
- CCL +10
- 52 vs 42
- 30 sessions ago
- CCL +4
- 48 vs 44
- 90 sessions ago
- CZR +1
- 43 vs 44
The lead changed hands 7 times in this window, most recently on Sep 29 when CCL moved ahead of CZR.
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 / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only CCL
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (9.76%)
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only CZR
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (7.72%)
- ATR Contraction - Coiling — neutral, volatility, short horizon (0.58%)
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
CCL 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 +0.89%, AIQ +2 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -0.65%, 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.
- 1CZR closes the Momentum gap — currently 40 points behind, the largest single contributor to CCL's edge.
- 2CZR's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3CCL's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 1 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
CCL leads on balance| Metric | CCL | CZR |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 8.1% | 4.3% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 105.3% | 37.5% |
| Gross margin | 34.4% | 56.5% |
| Operating margin | 16.3% | 17.5% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 24.4% | -12.6% |
| Debt to equity | 2.02 | 7.36 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | CCL | CZR |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 1.2% | -1.3% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 21.5% | -1.8% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 3.7% | -2.8% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -1.1% | 5.2% |
| Year to date | -11.4% | 24.4% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -4.1% | 33.9% |
Technicals
CCL has the stronger structure| Metric | CCL | CZR |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 69.5 | 30.3 |
| ADX (14) | 33.3 | 27.5 |
| Price vs 50-day | 10% | -2.3% |
| Price vs 200-day | -0.6% | 5.9% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 55.5% | 7.2% |
Risk
CZR is the more resilient| Metric | CCL | CZR |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.06 | 0.57 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.07 | 0.82 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.14 | 1.15 |
| Max drawdown | -35.9% | -28.4% |
| Current drawdown | -20.4% | -4.3% |
| Annualized volatility | 49.7% | 44.6% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -4.3% | -3.6% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, CCL or CZR?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, CCL is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 52 against CZR's 42. The edge comes from momentum and quality. CZR 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 CCL or CZR the better buy right now?
CCL 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 CCL over CZR?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. CCL leads Momentum by 40 points; CZR leads Risk Resilience by 32 points; CCL leads Quality by 15 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, CCL or CZR?
Analyst price targets imply +20.9% upside for CCL and +6.4% for CZR, so the Street currently favors CCL. 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, CCL or CZR?
Neither name separates on the peer-relative Value factor. The two are level on Value. 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, CCL or CZR?
CCL 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, CCL or CZR?
CCL on the Momentum factor, by 40 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, CCL or CZR?
CZR is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. CZR on Risk Resilience, by 32 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 CCL more profitable than CZR?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 34.4% vs 56.5%; operating margin 16.3% vs 17.5%; ttm roe 24.4% vs -12.6%. CCL leads on one measure and CZR 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 CCL's lead over CZR getting stronger or weaker?
CCL lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 4 to 10 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 7 times in that window, most recently on 2026-09-29, when CCL moved ahead of CZR.
What would change the CCL vs CZR verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: CZR closes the Momentum gap — currently 40 points behind, the largest single contributor to CCL's edge; CZR's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it; CCL's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 1 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 CCL and CZR?
CCL: 2 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. CZR: 1 bullish / 2 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 CCL is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On CZR it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare CCL and CZR 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.