CCL vs TKO Stock Comparison
CCL currently leads TKO in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 52 vs 40. The clearest difference is value, while TKO has the stronger risk resilience profile.
What is the main difference between CCL and TKO?
CCL leads the current stock comparison as Carnival Corporation & plc, with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Carnival Corporation & plc vs TKO Group Holdings, Inc.
CCL leads
CCL leads by 12 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Momentum. Wall Street currently favors TKO on target upside.
Competitive: 4 of 6 evidence groups support CCL, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Carnival Corporation & plc
TKO Group Holdings, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors CCL over TKO, 52 versus 40 as of Oct 21, 2026. CCL's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and momentum, while TKO holds the stronger risk resilience profile. CCL also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors TKO. 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: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 12 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Carnival Corporation & plc and TKO Group Holdings, 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 TKO 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.
- Risk Resilience19 vs 55TKO +36
- Value63 vs 30CCL +33
- Momentum72 vs 43CCL +29
- Quality40 vs 39Even
4 of 6 evidence groups favor CCL. CCL’s edge is concentrated in value and momentum; TKO 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 +6
New signals
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
CCL's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CCL and TKO both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
CCL (Carnival Corporation & plc): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and momentum.
TKO (TKO Group Holdings, Inc.): 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
CCLCCL on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
CCLCCL on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
CCLCCL on the peer-relative Value factor, by 33 points.
Momentum
CCLCCL on the Momentum factor, by 29 points.
Lower downside
TKOTKO on Risk Resilience, by 36 points.
Analyst upside
TKOTKO on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors CCL, analyst targets favor TKO. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | CCL | TKO | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +20.9% | +28.1% | TKO has more room |
| Target dispersion | +42.4% | +13.2% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 14 | 6 | 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
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 40 |
| Fundamentals | CCLon balance | revenue growth 8.1% vs -3.1%; EPS growth 105.3% vs 17.2%; TTM ROE 24.4% vs 6.4%; gross margin 34.4% vs 54.1%; operating margin 16.3% vs 20% — CCL takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | CCL | Value 63 vs 30 |
| Technicals | CCL | Price vs 50-day 10% vs -4.4%; vs 200-day -0.6% vs -7.6% |
| Risk Resilience | TKO | Risk Resilience 19 vs 55 |
| Analyst expectations | TKO | Target upside 20.9% vs 28.1% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of CCL and TKO 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 wide at 12 points. (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: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 12 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- CCL +12
- 52 vs 40
- 7 sessions ago
- CCL +15
- 52 vs 37
- 30 sessions ago
- CCL +14
- 48 vs 34
- 90 sessions ago
- TKO +3
- 43 vs 46
The lead changed hands 7 times in this window, most recently on Sep 9 when CCL moved ahead of TKO.
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
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
1 bullish / 3 bearish, conflicted
Only TKO
- 52-Week Low Proximity — bearish, risk, long horizon (2.8%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: Death Cross Active, MACD Bullish Crossover.
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).
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 2 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -0.95%, AIQ +2 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.
- 1TKO closes the Value gap — currently 33 points behind, the largest single contributor to CCL's edge.
- 2TKO's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend 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 | TKO |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 8.1% | -3.1% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 105.3% | 17.2% |
| Gross margin | 34.4% | 54.1% |
| Operating margin | 16.3% | 20% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 24.4% | 6.4% |
| Debt to equity | 2.02 | 1.46 |
Performance
CCL leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | CCL | TKO |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 1.2% | 3.3% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 21.5% | -4.9% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 3.7% | -1.1% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -1.1% | -1.9% |
| Year to date | -11.4% | -14% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -4.1% | -4.4% |
Technicals
CCL has the stronger structure| Metric | CCL | TKO |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 69.5 | 49.9 |
| ADX (14) | 33.3 | 24.1 |
| Price vs 50-day | 10% | -4.4% |
| Price vs 200-day | -0.6% | -7.6% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 55.5% | 25% |
Risk
TKO is the more resilient| Metric | CCL | TKO |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.06 | 0.44 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.07 | -0.13 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.14 | -0.21 |
| Max drawdown | -35.9% | -23.4% |
| Current drawdown | -20.4% | -20.1% |
| Annualized volatility | 49.7% | 31.7% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -4.3% | -3.1% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, CCL or TKO?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, CCL is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 52 against TKO's 40. The edge comes from value and momentum. TKO 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 TKO 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 TKO?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. TKO leads Risk Resilience by 36 points; CCL leads Value by 33 points; CCL leads Momentum by 29 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, CCL or TKO?
Analyst price targets imply +20.9% upside for CCL and +28.1% for TKO, so the Street currently favors TKO. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors CCL. 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, CCL or TKO?
CCL is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. CCL on the peer-relative Value factor, by 33 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, CCL or TKO?
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 TKO?
CCL on the Momentum factor, by 29 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 TKO?
TKO is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. TKO on Risk Resilience, by 36 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 TKO?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 34.4% vs 54.1%; operating margin 16.3% vs 20%; ttm roe 24.4% vs 6.4%. CCL leads on one measure and TKO 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 TKO getting stronger or weaker?
CCL lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 12 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 2026-09-09, when CCL moved ahead of TKO.
What would change the CCL vs TKO verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: TKO closes the Value gap — currently 33 points behind, the largest single contributor to CCL's edge; TKO's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend 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 TKO?
CCL: 2 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. TKO: 1 bullish / 3 bearish, 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 TKO it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare CCL and TKO 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.