CZR vs HLT Stock Comparison
HLT currently leads CZR in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 52 vs 42. The clearest difference is momentum, while CZR has the stronger value profile.
What is the main difference between CZR and HLT?
HLT leads the current stock comparison as Hilton Worldwide Holdings Inc., with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Caesars Entertainment, Inc. vs Hilton Worldwide Holdings Inc.
HLT leads
HLT leads by 10 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Quality. Wall Street currently favors CZR on target upside.
Fragile: 2 of 6 evidence groups support HLT, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Caesars Entertainment, Inc.
Hilton Worldwide Holdings Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors HLT over CZR, 52 versus 42 as of Oct 22, 2026. HLT's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and quality, while CZR holds the stronger value profile. HLT also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors CZR. 2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor HLT today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. HLT lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 10 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Caesars Entertainment, Inc. and Hilton Worldwide 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 CZR and HLT 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.
- Momentum32 vs 91HLT +59
- Value63 vs 24CZR +39
- Quality25 vs 50HLT +25
- Risk Resilience51 vs 50Even
2 of 6 evidence groups favor HLT. HLT’s edge is concentrated in momentum and quality; CZR 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 +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.
Largest factor move: Momentum +3, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
New signals
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (0.0%)
HLT's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CZR and HLT both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
HLT (Hilton Worldwide Holdings Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and quality.
CZR (Caesars Entertainment, Inc.): the counter-case, on value, fundamentals, valuation.
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
HLTHLT on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
EvenGrowth figures are not covered for both names.
Value
CZRCZR on the peer-relative Value factor, by 39 points.
Momentum
HLTHLT on the Momentum factor, by 59 points.
Lower downside
CZRCZR carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
CZRCZR on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors HLT, analyst targets favor CZR. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | CZR | HLT | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +6.2% | -2.4% | CZR has more room |
| Target dispersion | +26% | +20.5% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 8 | 8 | 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
2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor HLT. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | HLT | 42 vs 52 |
| Fundamentals | CZRon balance | revenue growth 4.3% vs 13.8%; EPS growth 37.5% vs 26.2%; TTM ROE -12.6% vs -28.1%; gross margin 56.5% vs 44.1%; operating margin 17.5% vs 23.3% — CZR takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | CZR | Value 63 vs 24 |
| Technicals | HLT | Price vs 50-day -2.1% vs 12.3%; vs 200-day 5.9% vs 12.8% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 51 vs 50 |
| Analyst expectations | CZR | Target upside 6.2% vs -2.4% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of CZR and HLT 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 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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 HLT.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20HLT lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 10 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- HLT +10
- 42 vs 52
- 7 sessions ago
- HLT +9
- 42 vs 51
- 30 sessions ago
- HLT +8
- 44 vs 52
- 90 sessions ago
- CZR +1
- 44 vs 43
The lead changed hands 8 times in this window, most recently on Oct 6 when HLT 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.
1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only CZR
- ATR Contraction - Coiling — neutral, volatility, short horizon (0.58%)
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
6 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted
Only HLT
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (0.0%)
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 1 more signal that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active.
HLT 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.
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.19%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -0.67%, 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 59 points behind, the largest single contributor to HLT's edge.
- 2CZR's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3HLT's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 6 bullish and 2 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
CZR leads on balance| Metric | CZR | HLT |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 4.3% | 13.8% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 37.5% | 26.2% |
| Gross margin | 56.5% | 44.1% |
| Operating margin | 17.5% | 23.3% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -12.6% | -28.1% |
| Debt to equity | 7.36 | -2.22 |
Performance
HLT leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | CZR | HLT |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -1.3% | 7.8% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -1.8% | 13.5% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -2.8% | 10.8% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 5.2% | 5.6% |
| Year to date | 24.4% | 21.4% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 33.9% | 34.4% |
Technicals
HLT has the stronger structure| Metric | CZR | HLT |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 30.3 | 84.1 |
| ADX (14) | 27.5 | 30.9 |
| Price vs 50-day | -2.1% | 12.3% |
| Price vs 200-day | 5.9% | 12.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 7.2% | 24.5% |
Risk
Split| Metric | CZR | HLT |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.57 | 0.58 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.82 | 1.3 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.15 | 2.28 |
| Max drawdown | -28.4% | -13.6% |
| Current drawdown | -4.3% | 0% |
| Annualized volatility | 44.6% | 24.2% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.6% | -2.3% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, CZR or HLT?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, HLT is the stronger of the two as of Oct 22, 2026, scoring 52 against CZR's 42. The edge comes from momentum and quality. CZR 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 CZR or HLT the better buy right now?
HLT carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 22, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: only 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor HLT over CZR?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. HLT leads Momentum by 59 points; CZR leads Value by 39 points; HLT leads Quality by 25 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, CZR or HLT?
Analyst price targets imply +6.2% upside for CZR and -2.4% for HLT, so the Street currently favors CZR. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors HLT. 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, CZR or HLT?
CZR is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. CZR on the peer-relative Value factor, by 39 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, CZR or HLT?
Growth figures are not covered for both names. 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, CZR or HLT?
HLT on the Momentum factor, by 59 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, CZR or HLT?
CZR is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. CZR carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility. Risk Resilience is a weighted factor in the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is CZR more profitable than HLT?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 56.5% vs 44.1%; operating margin 17.5% vs 23.3%; ttm roe -12.6% vs -28.1%. CZR leads on two measures and HLT 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 HLT's lead over CZR getting stronger or weaker?
HLT lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 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 8 times in that window, most recently on 2026-10-06, when HLT moved ahead of CZR.
What would change the CZR vs HLT verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: CZR closes the Momentum gap — currently 59 points behind, the largest single contributor to HLT's edge; CZR's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it; HLT's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 6 bullish and 2 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 CZR and HLT?
CZR: 1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. HLT: 6 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 CZR is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On HLT it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare CZR and HLT 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.