CZR vs WYNN Stock Comparison
WYNN currently leads CZR in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 44 vs 42. The clearest difference is quality, while CZR has the stronger value profile.
What is the main difference between CZR and WYNN?
WYNN leads the current stock comparison as Wynn Resorts, Limited, with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Caesars Entertainment, Inc. vs Wynn Resorts, Limited
WYNN leads
WYNN leads by 2 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Momentum, having only recently taken the lead back from CZR.
Fragile: 1 of 6 evidence groups support WYNN, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Caesars Entertainment, Inc.
Wynn Resorts, Limited
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors WYNN over CZR, 44 versus 42 as of Oct 21, 2026. WYNN's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and momentum, while CZR holds the stronger value profile. WYNN also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 1 of 6 covered evidence groups favor WYNN today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. WYNN lead: Reversed — CZR led by 3 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; WYNN now leads by 2.
Compare Caesars Entertainment, Inc. 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 CZR 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.
- Quality25 vs 47WYNN +22
- Value63 vs 46CZR +17
- Momentum32 vs 39WYNN +7
- Risk Resilience51 vs 44CZR +7
1 of 6 evidence groups favor WYNN. WYNN’s edge is concentrated in quality and momentum; 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 +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.
WYNN's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CZR and WYNN both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
WYNN (Wynn Resorts, Limited): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and momentum.
CZR (Caesars Entertainment, Inc.): the counter-case, on value, risk resilience, fundamentals.
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
WYNNWYNN on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
CZRCZR on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
CZRCZR on the peer-relative Value factor, by 17 points.
Momentum
WYNNWYNN on the Momentum factor, by 7 points.
Lower downside
CZRCZR on Risk Resilience, by 7 points.
Analyst upside
WYNNWYNN 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 | CZR | WYNN | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +6.4% | +74.8% | WYNN has more room |
| Target dispersion | +26% | +31% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 8 | 10 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
1 of 6 covered evidence groups favor WYNN. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | Even | 42 vs 44 |
| Fundamentals | CZR | EPS growth 37.5% vs 17.1%; TTM ROE -12.6% vs -174.9%; gross margin 56.5% vs 38.6%; operating margin 17.5% vs 16.1% |
| Valuation | CZR | Value 63 vs 46 |
| Technicals | CZR | Price vs 50-day -2.3% vs -12.9%; vs 200-day 5.9% vs -22.7% |
| Risk Resilience | CZR | Risk Resilience 51 vs 44 |
| Analyst expectations | WYNN | Target upside 6.4% vs 74.8% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of CZR and WYNN 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 narrow at 2 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 1 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (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 WYNN.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20WYNN lead: Reversed — CZR led by 3 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; WYNN now leads by 2.
- Today
- WYNN +2
- 42 vs 44
- 7 sessions ago
- WYNN +1
- 42 vs 43
- 30 sessions ago
- CZR +3
- 44 vs 41
- 90 sessions ago
- WYNN +7
- 44 vs 51
The lead changed hands 4 times in this window, most recently on Oct 15 when WYNN 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
- 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
1 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted
Only WYNN
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (15.21%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
WYNN 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 -0.65%, AIQ 0 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.
- 1CZR closes the Quality gap — currently 22 points behind, the largest single contributor to WYNN's edge.
- 2CZR's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3WYNN's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 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 | WYNN |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 4.3% | 0% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 37.5% | 17.1% |
| Gross margin | 56.5% | 38.6% |
| Operating margin | 17.5% | 16.1% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -12.6% | -174.9% |
| Debt to equity | 7.36 | -72.84 |
Performance
CZR leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | CZR | WYNN |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -1.3% | 2.3% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -1.8% | -6.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -2.8% | -17.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 5.2% | -28.1% |
| Year to date | 24.4% | -35.6% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 33.9% | -33.2% |
Technicals
CZR has the stronger structure| Metric | CZR | WYNN |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 30.3 | 44.1 |
| ADX (14) | 27.5 | 44.3 |
| Price vs 50-day | -2.3% | -12.9% |
| Price vs 200-day | 5.9% | -22.7% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 7.2% | 29.9% |
Risk
CZR is the more resilient| Metric | CZR | WYNN |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.57 | 0.89 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.82 | -1.27 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.15 | -2.13 |
| Max drawdown | -28.4% | -44.6% |
| Current drawdown | -4.3% | -41.8% |
| Annualized volatility | 44.6% | 32.1% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.6% | -3.3% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, CZR or WYNN?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, WYNN is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 44 against CZR's 42. The edge comes from quality and momentum. 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 WYNN the better buy right now?
WYNN carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 1 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor WYNN over CZR?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. WYNN leads Quality by 22 points; CZR leads Value by 17 points; WYNN leads Momentum by 7 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, CZR or WYNN?
Analyst price targets imply +6.4% upside for CZR and +74.8% for WYNN, so the Street currently favors WYNN. 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, CZR or WYNN?
CZR is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. CZR 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, CZR or WYNN?
CZR 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, CZR or WYNN?
WYNN on the Momentum factor, by 7 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 WYNN?
CZR is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. CZR on Risk Resilience, by 7 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 CZR more profitable than WYNN?
CZR leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 56.5% vs 38.6%; operating margin 17.5% vs 16.1%; ttm roe -12.6% vs -174.9%.
Is WYNN's lead over CZR getting stronger or weaker?
WYNN lead: Reversed — CZR led by 3 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; WYNN now leads by 2. 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 2026-10-15, when WYNN moved ahead of CZR.
What would change the CZR vs WYNN verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: CZR closes the Quality gap — currently 22 points behind, the largest single contributor to WYNN's edge; CZR's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it; WYNN's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 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 WYNN?
CZR: 1 bullish / 2 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 CZR is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On WYNN it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare CZR 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.