EXPE vs MELI Stock Comparison
EXPE currently leads MELI in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 54 vs 31. The clearest difference is momentum.
What is the main difference between EXPE and MELI?
EXPE leads the current stock comparison as Expedia Group, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Expedia Group, Inc. vs MercadoLibre, Inc.
EXPE leads
EXPE leads by 23 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Value, and the lead has widened from 2 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors MELI on target upside.
Stable: 4 of 6 evidence groups support EXPE, its lead is widening, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Expedia Group, Inc.
MercadoLibre, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors EXPE over MELI, 54 versus 31 as of Oct 31, 2026. EXPE's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and value. EXPE also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors MELI. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor EXPE today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability: the lead has swung materially session to session. EXPE lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 2 to 23 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Expedia Group, Inc. and MercadoLibre, 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 EXPE and MELI 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.
- Momentum52 vs 8EXPE +44
- Value44 vs 24EXPE +20
- Quality70 vs 51EXPE +19
- Risk Resilience43 vs 43Even
4 of 6 evidence groups favor EXPE. EXPE’s edge is concentrated in momentum and value.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-30, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-29.
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
EXPE's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — EXPE and MELI both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
EXPE (Expedia Group, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and value.
MELI (MercadoLibre, Inc.): the counter-case, on analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 49.3% against 44.1%.
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
EXPEEXPE on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
EXPEEXPE on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EXPEEXPE on the peer-relative Value factor, by 20 points.
Momentum
EXPEEXPE on the Momentum factor, by 44 points.
Lower downside
EXPEEXPE carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
MELIMELI on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors EXPE, analyst targets favor MELI. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | EXPE | MELI | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +11.2% | +33.7% | MELI has more room |
| Target dispersion | +61.3% | +32.2% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 17 | 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 EXPE. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | EXPE | 54 vs 31 |
| Fundamentals | EXPE | revenue growth 25.9% vs 15%; EPS growth 149.4% vs 11.7%; TTM ROE 184.8% vs 26.5%; gross margin 90.4% vs 42.7%; operating margin 18.8% vs 8.3% |
| Valuation | EXPE | Value 44 vs 24 |
| Technicals | EXPE | Price vs 50-day -0.7% vs -12.3%; vs 200-day 6.3% vs -8% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 43 vs 43 |
| Analyst expectations | MELI | Target upside 11.2% vs 33.7% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of EXPE and MELI 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 23 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The lead has swung materially session to session. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's signal state is cleanly positive. (supports the conclusion holding)
- Analyst targets on the leader are widely dispersed. (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 EXPE.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jul 1 – Oct 30EXPE lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 2 to 23 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- EXPE +23
- 54 vs 31
- 7 sessions ago
- EXPE +20
- 59 vs 39
- 30 sessions ago
- EXPE +2
- 53 vs 51
- 90 sessions ago
- EXPE +5
- 57 vs 52
The lead changed hands 4 times in this window, most recently on Oct 8 when EXPE moved ahead of MELI.
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.
3 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
Only EXPE
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
2 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only MELI
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode.
MELI is conflicted, so the timing case there is weaker than the score alone suggests.
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 +1.13%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -2.14%, 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.
- 1MELI closes the Momentum gap — currently 44 points behind, the largest single contributor to EXPE's edge.
- 2MELI's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3EXPE's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict.
- 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
EXPE leads on balance| Metric | EXPE | MELI |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 25.9% | 15% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 149.4% | 11.7% |
| Gross margin | 90.4% | 42.7% |
| Operating margin | 18.8% | 8.3% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 184.8% | 26.5% |
| Debt to equity | 4.7 | 1.68 |
Performance
EXPE leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | EXPE | MELI |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -3.5% | -9.8% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 4.6% | -3.2% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -5.9% | -11.3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 10% | -5.3% |
| Year to date | -2.7% | -16.9% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 25.9% | -22.6% |
Technicals
EXPE has the stronger structure| Metric | EXPE | MELI |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 52.7 | 27.4 |
| ADX (14) | 21.7 | 17.8 |
| Price vs 50-day | -0.7% | -12.3% |
| Price vs 200-day | 6.3% | -8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 44.1% | 49.3% |
Risk
Split| Metric | EXPE | MELI |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.92 | 1.04 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.57 | -0.67 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.84 | -0.86 |
| Max drawdown | -37.4% | -34.5% |
| Current drawdown | -18.8% | -29.1% |
| Annualized volatility | 51% | 40.5% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -4.3% | -3.6% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, EXPE or MELI?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, EXPE is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 54 against MELI's 31. The edge comes from momentum and value. 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 EXPE or MELI the better buy right now?
EXPE carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 31, 2026, and the comparison is rated Stable — 4 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 EXPE over MELI?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. EXPE leads Momentum by 44 points; EXPE leads Value by 20 points; EXPE leads Quality by 19 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, EXPE or MELI?
Analyst price targets imply +11.2% upside for EXPE and +33.7% for MELI, so the Street currently favors MELI. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors EXPE. 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, EXPE or MELI?
EXPE is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. EXPE on the peer-relative Value factor, by 20 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, EXPE or MELI?
EXPE 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, EXPE or MELI?
EXPE on the Momentum factor, by 44 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, EXPE or MELI?
EXPE is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. EXPE 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 EXPE more profitable than MELI?
EXPE leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 90.4% vs 42.7%; operating margin 18.8% vs 8.3%; ttm roe 184.8% vs 26.5%.
Is EXPE's lead over MELI getting stronger or weaker?
EXPE lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 2 to 23 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-07-01 and 2026-10-30. The lead has changed hands 4 times in that window, most recently on 2026-10-08, when EXPE moved ahead of MELI.
What would change the EXPE vs MELI verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: MELI closes the Momentum gap — currently 44 points behind, the largest single contributor to EXPE's edge; MELI's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it; EXPE's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict; 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 EXPE and MELI?
EXPE: 3 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. MELI: 2 bullish / 2 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 EXPE is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On MELI it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare EXPE and MELI 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.