CCL vs WYNN Stock Comparison
CCL currently leads WYNN in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 52 vs 44. The clearest difference is momentum, while WYNN has the stronger risk resilience profile.
What is the main difference between CCL and WYNN?
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 Wynn Resorts, Limited
CCL leads
CCL leads by 8 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Value. Wall Street currently favors WYNN on target upside.
Competitive: 4 of 6 evidence groups support CCL, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Carnival Corporation & plc
Wynn Resorts, Limited
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors CCL over WYNN, 52 versus 44 as of Oct 21, 2026. CCL's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and value, while WYNN 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 WYNN. 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 8 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Carnival Corporation & plc and Wynn Resorts, Limited 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 WYNN 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 39CCL +33
- Risk Resilience19 vs 44WYNN +25
- Value63 vs 46CCL +17
- Quality40 vs 47WYNN +7
4 of 6 evidence groups favor CCL. CCL’s edge is concentrated in momentum and value; WYNN 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 3 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 WYNN both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
CCL (Carnival Corporation & plc): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and value.
WYNN (Wynn Resorts, Limited): the counter-case, on risk resilience, quality, 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 17 points.
Momentum
CCLCCL on the Momentum factor, by 33 points.
Lower downside
WYNNWYNN on Risk Resilience, by 25 points.
Analyst upside
WYNNWYNN 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 WYNN. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | CCL | WYNN | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +20.9% | +74.8% | WYNN has more room |
| Target dispersion | +42.4% | +31% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 14 | 10 | 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 44 |
| Fundamentals | CCLon balance | EPS growth 105.3% vs 17.1%; TTM ROE 24.4% vs -174.9%; gross margin 34.4% vs 38.6%; operating margin 16.3% vs 16.1% — CCL takes 2 of 3 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | CCL | Value 63 vs 46 |
| Technicals | CCL | Price vs 50-day 10% vs -12.9%; vs 200-day -0.6% vs -22.7% |
| Risk Resilience | WYNN | Risk Resilience 19 vs 44 |
| Analyst expectations | WYNN | Target upside 20.9% vs 74.8% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of CCL and WYNN 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 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)
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 8 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- CCL +8
- 52 vs 44
- 7 sessions ago
- CCL +9
- 52 vs 43
- 30 sessions ago
- CCL +7
- 48 vs 41
- 90 sessions ago
- WYNN +8
- 43 vs 51
The lead changed hands 4 times in this window, most recently on Aug 13 when CCL moved ahead of WYNN.
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 / 2 bearish, conflicted
Only WYNN
- 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).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -2.18%, 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.
- 1WYNN closes the Momentum gap — currently 33 points behind, the largest single contributor to CCL's edge.
- 2WYNN'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 | WYNN |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 8.1% | 0% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 105.3% | 17.1% |
| Gross margin | 34.4% | 38.6% |
| Operating margin | 16.3% | 16.1% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 24.4% | -174.9% |
| Debt to equity | 2.02 | -72.84 |
Performance
CCL leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | CCL | WYNN |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 1.2% | 2.3% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 21.5% | -6.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 3.7% | -17.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -1.1% | -28.1% |
| Year to date | -11.4% | -35.6% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -4.1% | -33.2% |
Technicals
CCL has the stronger structure| Metric | CCL | WYNN |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 69.5 | 44.1 |
| ADX (14) | 33.3 | 44.3 |
| Price vs 50-day | 10% | -12.9% |
| Price vs 200-day | -0.6% | -22.7% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 55.5% | 29.9% |
Risk
WYNN is the more resilient| Metric | CCL | WYNN |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.06 | 0.89 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.07 | -1.27 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.14 | -2.13 |
| Max drawdown | -35.9% | -44.6% |
| Current drawdown | -20.4% | -41.8% |
| Annualized volatility | 49.7% | 32.1% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -4.3% | -3.3% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, CCL or WYNN?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, CCL is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 52 against WYNN's 44. The edge comes from momentum and value. WYNN 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 WYNN 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 WYNN?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. CCL leads Momentum by 33 points; WYNN leads Risk Resilience by 25 points; CCL leads Value by 17 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, CCL or WYNN?
Analyst price targets imply +20.9% upside for CCL and +74.8% for WYNN, so the Street currently favors WYNN. 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 WYNN?
CCL is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. CCL 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, CCL or WYNN?
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 WYNN?
CCL on the Momentum factor, by 33 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 WYNN?
WYNN is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. WYNN on Risk Resilience, by 25 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 WYNN?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 34.4% vs 38.6%; operating margin 16.3% vs 16.1%; ttm roe 24.4% vs -174.9%. Each name leads 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 CCL's lead over WYNN getting stronger or weaker?
CCL 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 4 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-13, when CCL moved ahead of WYNN.
What would change the CCL vs WYNN verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: WYNN closes the Momentum gap — currently 33 points behind, the largest single contributor to CCL's edge; WYNN'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 WYNN?
CCL: 2 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. WYNN: 1 bullish / 2 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 WYNN it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare CCL and WYNN 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.