GENI vs MGNI Stock Comparison
Compare GENI and MGNI across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between GENI and MGNI?
MGNI leads the current stock comparison as Magnite, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Genius Sports Limited vs Magnite, Inc.
MGNI leads
MGNI leads by 20 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Momentum, and the lead has widened from 13 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors GENI on target upside.
Competitive: 4 of 6 evidence groups support MGNI, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Genius Sports Limited
Magnite, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors MGNI over GENI, 51 versus 31 as of Sep 11, 2026. MGNI's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and momentum, while GENI holds the stronger value profile. MGNI also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors GENI. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor MGNI today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. MGNI lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 13 to 20 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Genius Sports Limited and Magnite, 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 GENI and MGNI 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.
- Quality24 vs 71MGNI +47
- Momentum25 vs 63MGNI +38
- Value48 vs 29GENI +19
- Risk Resilience22 vs 33MGNI +11
4 of 6 evidence groups favor MGNI. MGNI’s edge is concentrated in quality and momentum; GENI keeps a meaningful value edge.
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 -13
New signals
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum +4
No new signals fired.
MGNI's lead widened by 4 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — GENI and MGNI both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
MGNI (Magnite, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and momentum.
GENI (Genius Sports Limited): the counter-case, on value, valuation, analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 62.6% against 40%.
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
MGNIMGNI on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
MGNIMGNI on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
GENIGENI on the peer-relative Value factor, by 19 points.
Momentum
MGNIMGNI on the Momentum factor, by 38 points.
Lower downside
MGNIMGNI on Risk Resilience, by 11 points.
Analyst upside
GENIGENI on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors MGNI, analyst targets favor GENI. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | GENI | MGNI | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +44.4% | +3.6% | GENI has more room |
| Target dispersion | +71.1% | +40.6% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 10 | 5 | 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 MGNI. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | MGNI | 31 vs 51 |
| Fundamentals | MGNI | revenue growth 4% vs 17.3%; EPS growth -33.3% vs 3.7%; TTM ROE -25.7% vs 18.6%; gross margin 27.4% vs 64.8%; operating margin -12.6% vs 15.6% |
| Valuation | GENI | Value 48 vs 29 |
| Technicals | MGNI | Price vs 50-day -5.3% vs 8.6%; vs 200-day -4.1% vs 46.2% |
| Risk Resilience | MGNI | Risk Resilience 22 vs 33 |
| Analyst expectations | GENI | Target upside 44.4% vs 3.6% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of GENI and MGNI 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 wide at 20 points. (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 MGNI.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10MGNI lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 13 to 20 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- MGNI +20
- 31 vs 51
- 7 sessions ago
- MGNI +11
- 39 vs 50
- 30 sessions ago
- MGNI +13
- 41 vs 54
- 90 sessions ago
- MGNI +18
- 36 vs 54
The lead has not changed hands in this window.
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 / 2 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (2.77%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
3 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (35.88%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
MGNI 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 is up while the AIQ Score moved down 3 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +1.49%, AIQ -3 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.93%, 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.
- 1GENI closes the Quality gap — currently 47 points behind, the largest single contributor to MGNI's edge.
- 2GENI's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3MGNI'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
MGNI leads on balance| Metric | GENI | MGNI |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 4% | 17.3% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -33.3% | 3.7% |
| Gross margin | 27.4% | 64.8% |
| Operating margin | -12.6% | 15.6% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -25.7% | 18.6% |
| Debt to equity | 1.2 | 0.45 |
Performance
MGNI leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | GENI | MGNI |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -9.4% | -5.3% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -12.2% | -3.2% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -1.2% | 50.3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 29% | 80.7% |
| Year to date | -39% | 45.1% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -47.4% | -7.1% |
Technicals
MGNI has the stronger structure| Metric | GENI | MGNI |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 30.9 | 51.8 |
| ADX (14) | 18.6 | 32.7 |
| Price vs 50-day | -5.3% | 8.6% |
| Price vs 200-day | -4.1% | 46.2% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 62.6% | 40% |
Risk
MGNI is the more resilient| Metric | GENI | MGNI |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.49 | 1.05 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.62 | 0.16 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.94 | 0.24 |
| Max drawdown | -70.8% | -56.8% |
| Current drawdown | -50% | -9.1% |
| Annualized volatility | 70.3% | 58.6% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -6.1% | -5.6% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, GENI or MGNI?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, MGNI is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 51 against GENI's 31. The edge comes from quality and momentum. GENI 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 GENI or MGNI the better buy right now?
MGNI carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 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 MGNI over GENI?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. MGNI leads Quality by 47 points; MGNI leads Momentum by 38 points; GENI leads Value by 19 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, GENI or MGNI?
Analyst price targets imply +44.4% upside for GENI and +3.6% for MGNI, so the Street currently favors GENI. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors MGNI. 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, GENI or MGNI?
GENI is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. GENI on the peer-relative Value factor, by 19 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, GENI or MGNI?
MGNI 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, GENI or MGNI?
MGNI on the Momentum factor, by 38 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, GENI or MGNI?
MGNI is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. MGNI on Risk Resilience, by 11 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 GENI more profitable than MGNI?
MGNI leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 27.4% vs 64.8%; operating margin -12.6% vs 15.6%; ttm roe -25.7% vs 18.6%.
Is MGNI's lead over GENI getting stronger or weaker?
MGNI lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 13 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 not changed hands in that window.
What would change the GENI vs MGNI verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: GENI closes the Quality gap — currently 47 points behind, the largest single contributor to MGNI's edge; GENI's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; MGNI'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 GENI and MGNI?
GENI: 2 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted. MGNI: 3 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 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 GENI is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On MGNI it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare GENI and MGNI 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.