ETSY vs MTCH Stock Comparison
Compare ETSY and MTCH across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between ETSY and MTCH?
MTCH leads the current stock comparison as Match Group, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Etsy, Inc. vs Match Group, Inc.
MTCH leads
MTCH leads by 20 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Risk Resilience, and the lead has widened from 11 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors ETSY on target upside.
Stable: 5 of 6 evidence groups support MTCH, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Etsy, Inc.
Match Group, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors MTCH over ETSY, 57 versus 37 as of Sep 11, 2026. MTCH's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and risk resilience. MTCH also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors ETSY. 5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor MTCH today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. MTCH lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 11 to 20 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Etsy, Inc. and Match Group, Inc. across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Performance over time
Price-return comparison using available daily close history.
Total return comparison
Growth of $10,000
Based on available close-price history. Distribution reinvestment is not added unless already reflected in the source series.
Compare ETSY and MTCH 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.
- Momentum29 vs 69MTCH +40
- Risk Resilience22 vs 47MTCH +25
- Value27 vs 50MTCH +23
- Quality60 vs 60Even
5 of 6 evidence groups favor MTCH. MTCH’s edge is concentrated in momentum and risk resilience.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-10, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-09.
Largest factor move: Momentum -1
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum -2
No new signals fired.
MTCH's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — ETSY and MTCH both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
MTCH (Match Group, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and risk resilience.
ETSY (Etsy, Inc.): the counter-case, on analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 46.7% against 28.4%.
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
MTCHMTCH on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
MTCHMTCH on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
MTCHMTCH on the peer-relative Value factor, by 23 points.
Momentum
MTCHMTCH on the Momentum factor, by 40 points.
Lower downside
MTCHMTCH on Risk Resilience, by 25 points.
Analyst upside
ETSYETSY on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors MTCH, analyst targets favor ETSY. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | ETSY | MTCH | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +11.3% | -2.8% | ETSY has more room |
| Target dispersion | +56.8% | +34% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 16 | 7 | 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
5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor MTCH. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | MTCH | 37 vs 57 |
| Fundamentals | MTCHon balance | revenue growth 5.9% vs -1.3%; EPS growth -168.1% vs 5.8%; TTM ROE -17.7% vs -3%; gross margin 72.3% vs 74.8%; operating margin 16% vs 28.2% — MTCH takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | MTCH | Value 27 vs 50 |
| Technicals | MTCH | Price vs 50-day -10.1% vs 7.5%; vs 200-day 11.5% vs 20.1% |
| Risk Resilience | MTCH | Risk Resilience 22 vs 47 |
| Analyst expectations | ETSY | Target upside 11.3% vs -2.8% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of ETSY and MTCH and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion rests on a wide gap and broad agreement. It is unlikely to turn on a single session.
- The AIQ gap is wide at 20 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 5 of 6 covered evidence groups point the same way. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (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 MTCH.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10MTCH lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 11 to 20 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- MTCH +20
- 37 vs 57
- 7 sessions ago
- MTCH +20
- 40 vs 60
- 30 sessions ago
- MTCH +11
- 45 vs 56
- 90 sessions ago
- MTCH +12
- 48 vs 60
The lead changed hands once in this window, most recently on Jun 3 when ETSY moved ahead of MTCH.
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 / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (26.05%)
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
3 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (13.25%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
MTCH 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 +1.63%, AIQ 0 points).
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +1.36%, 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.
- 1ETSY closes the Momentum gap — currently 40 points behind, the largest single contributor to MTCH's edge.
- 2ETSY's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3MTCH's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 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
MTCH leads on balance| Metric | ETSY | MTCH |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 5.9% | -1.3% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -168.1% | 5.8% |
| Gross margin | 72.3% | 74.8% |
| Operating margin | 16% | 28.2% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -17.7% | -3% |
| Debt to equity | -2.2 | -14.98 |
Performance
MTCH leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | ETSY | MTCH |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -12.4% | -1.5% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -10.1% | 14.3% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 4.2% | 21.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 35.9% | 36.7% |
| Year to date | 29.1% | 29.5% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 23% | 7.9% |
Technicals
MTCH has the stronger structure| Metric | ETSY | MTCH |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 32.6 | 59.4 |
| ADX (14) | 17.8 | 19.1 |
| Price vs 50-day | -10.1% | 7.5% |
| Price vs 200-day | 11.5% | 20.1% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 46.7% | 28.4% |
Risk
MTCH is the more resilient| Metric | ETSY | MTCH |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.13 | 0.9 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.65 | 0.32 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.94 | 0.47 |
| Max drawdown | -41.1% | -25.1% |
| Current drawdown | -17.7% | -1.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 53.8% | 32.1% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -5.1% | -3.1% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, ETSY or MTCH?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, MTCH is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 57 against ETSY's 37. The edge comes from momentum and risk resilience. 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 ETSY or MTCH the better buy right now?
MTCH carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Stable — 5 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Stable rating means the gap is wide and the evidence is broad, so the conclusion is unlikely to turn on a single session.
Why does the AIQ Score favor MTCH over ETSY?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. MTCH leads Momentum by 40 points; MTCH leads Risk Resilience by 25 points; MTCH leads Value by 23 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, ETSY or MTCH?
Analyst price targets imply +11.3% upside for ETSY and -2.8% for MTCH, so the Street currently favors ETSY. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors MTCH. 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, ETSY or MTCH?
MTCH is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. MTCH on the peer-relative Value factor, by 23 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, ETSY or MTCH?
MTCH 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, ETSY or MTCH?
MTCH on the Momentum factor, by 40 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, ETSY or MTCH?
MTCH is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. MTCH 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 ETSY more profitable than MTCH?
MTCH leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 72.3% vs 74.8%; operating margin 16% vs 28.2%; ttm roe -17.7% vs -3%.
Is MTCH's lead over ETSY getting stronger or weaker?
MTCH lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 11 to 20 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has changed hands once in that window, most recently on 2026-06-03, when ETSY moved ahead of MTCH.
What would change the ETSY vs MTCH verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: ETSY closes the Momentum gap — currently 40 points behind, the largest single contributor to MTCH's edge; ETSY's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it; MTCH's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 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 ETSY and MTCH?
ETSY: 2 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. MTCH: 3 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, 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 ETSY is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On MTCH it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare ETSY and MTCH 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.