CCL vs WH Stock Comparison
WH currently leads CCL in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 60 vs 52. The clearest difference is risk resilience, while CCL has the stronger value profile.
What is the main difference between CCL and WH?
WH leads the current stock comparison as Wyndham Hotels & Resorts, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from risk resilience and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Carnival Corporation & plc vs Wyndham Hotels & Resorts, Inc.
WH leads
WH leads by 8 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Quality.
Fragile: 4 of 6 evidence groups support WH, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Carnival Corporation & plc
Wyndham Hotels & Resorts, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors WH over CCL, 60 versus 52 as of Oct 21, 2026. WH's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and quality, while CCL holds the stronger value profile. WH also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor WH today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. WH lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 8 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Carnival Corporation & plc and Wyndham Hotels & Resorts, 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 WH 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 50WH +31
- Quality40 vs 69WH +29
- Value63 vs 44CCL +19
- Momentum72 vs 74Even
4 of 6 evidence groups favor WH. WH’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and quality; CCL keeps a meaningful value 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 +3
New signals
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
WH's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CCL and WH both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
WH (Wyndham Hotels & Resorts, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and quality.
CCL (Carnival Corporation & plc): the counter-case, on value, valuation — but at materially higher volatility, 55.5% against 20.9%.
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
WHWH 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 19 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
WHWH on Risk Resilience, by 31 points.
Analyst upside
WHWH 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 | WH | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +20.9% | +22.7% | WH has more room |
| Target dispersion | +42.4% | +26% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | 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 WH. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | WH | 52 vs 60 |
| Fundamentals | WHon balance | revenue growth 8.1% vs 14.7%; EPS growth 105.3% vs 69.1%; TTM ROE 24.4% vs 42.1%; gross margin 34.4% vs 64.2%; operating margin 16.3% vs 31% — WH takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | CCL | Value 63 vs 44 |
| Technicals | Even | Price vs 50-day 10% vs 8.4%; vs 200-day -0.6% vs -0.9% |
| Risk Resilience | WH | Risk Resilience 19 vs 50 |
| Analyst expectations | WH | Target upside 20.9% vs 22.7% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of CCL and WH 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.
- The lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Signal direction runs against the verdict: the leader is net-bearish while the laggard is net-bullish. (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 WH.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20WH lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 8 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- WH +8
- 52 vs 60
- 7 sessions ago
- WH +8
- 52 vs 60
- 30 sessions ago
- WH +6
- 48 vs 54
- 90 sessions ago
- WH +7
- 43 vs 50
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on Aug 10 when WH moved ahead of CCL.
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
2 bullish / 3 bearish, conflicted
Only WH
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 3 more signals that do not separate them: Death Cross Active, Keltner Channel Breakout, MACD Bullish Crossover.
WH 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 and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +1.31%, 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.
- 1CCL closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 31 points behind, the largest single contributor to WH's edge.
- 2CCL's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3WH's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 3 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
WH leads on balance| Metric | CCL | WH |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 8.1% | 14.7% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 105.3% | 69.1% |
| Gross margin | 34.4% | 64.2% |
| Operating margin | 16.3% | 31% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 24.4% | 42.1% |
| Debt to equity | 2.02 | 5.57 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | CCL | WH |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 1.2% | 5.4% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 21.5% | 14% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 3.7% | 2.2% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -1.1% | -12.1% |
| Year to date | -11.4% | 2.4% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -4.1% | -1.5% |
Technicals
Split| Metric | CCL | WH |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 69.5 | 74.5 |
| ADX (14) | 33.3 | 26 |
| Price vs 50-day | 10% | 8.4% |
| Price vs 200-day | -0.6% | -0.9% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 55.5% | 20.9% |
Risk
WH is the more resilient| Metric | CCL | WH |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.06 | 0.52 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.07 | -0.01 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.14 | -0.02 |
| Max drawdown | -35.9% | -25.3% |
| Current drawdown | -20.4% | -14% |
| Annualized volatility | 49.7% | 30.6% |
| 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 WH?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, WH is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 60 against CCL's 52. The edge comes from risk resilience and quality. CCL is not without a case — it holds the better value 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 WH the better buy right now?
WH carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 4 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor WH over CCL?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. WH leads Risk Resilience by 31 points; WH leads Quality by 29 points; CCL leads Value by 19 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, CCL or WH?
Analyst price targets imply +20.9% upside for CCL and +22.7% for WH, so the Street currently favors WH. 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 WH?
CCL is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. CCL on the peer-relative Value factor, by 19 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 WH?
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 WH?
The two are level on Momentum. 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 WH?
WH is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. WH on Risk Resilience, by 31 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 WH?
WH leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 34.4% vs 64.2%; operating margin 16.3% vs 31%; ttm roe 24.4% vs 42.1%.
Is WH's lead over CCL getting stronger or weaker?
WH lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 8 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 2 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-10, when WH moved ahead of CCL.
What would change the CCL vs WH verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: CCL closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 31 points behind, the largest single contributor to WH's edge; CCL's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; WH's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 3 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 WH?
CCL: 2 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. WH: 2 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 WH it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare CCL and WH 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.