H vs HLT Stock Comparison
HLT currently leads H in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 52 vs 43. The clearest difference is quality.
What is the main difference between H and HLT?
HLT leads the current stock comparison as Hilton Worldwide Holdings Inc., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Hyatt Hotels Corporation vs Hilton Worldwide Holdings Inc.
HLT leads
HLT leads by 9 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Momentum, but the lead has narrowed from 18 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors H on target upside.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support HLT, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Hyatt Hotels Corporation
Hilton Worldwide Holdings Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors HLT over H, 52 versus 43 as of Oct 21, 2026. HLT's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and momentum. HLT also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors H. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor HLT today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. HLT lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 18 to 9 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Hyatt Hotels Corporation 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 H 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.
- Quality21 vs 50HLT +29
- Momentum86 vs 91HLT +5
- Value25 vs 24Even
- Risk Resilience50 vs 50Even
3 of 6 evidence groups favor HLT. HLT’s edge is concentrated in quality and momentum.
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 +6
New signals
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
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 narrowed by 2 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — H and HLT both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
HLT (Hilton Worldwide Holdings Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and momentum.
H (Hyatt Hotels Corporation): the counter-case, on analyst expectations.
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
HH on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
HLTHLT on the Momentum factor, by 5 points.
Lower downside
HLTHLT carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
HH 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 H. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | H | HLT | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +11.7% | -3.1% | H has more room |
| Target dispersion | +25.6% | +20.5% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 13 | 9 | 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.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | H | HLT |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 24.57% | 31.95% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $0.200 | $0.150 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $0.600 | $0.600 |
| Years increased | — | — |
| No cut in window | — | — |
| Cohort rank | not ranked | not ranked |
HLT grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 31.95% a year against H's 24.57%.
Yield and payout ratio shown elsewhere on this page are current values, not part of the study window.
Split-adjusted regular dividends per share, 2020–2025, excluding special dividends. Research as of Sep 19, 2026.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
3 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 | 43 vs 52 |
| Fundamentals | HLTon balance | revenue growth 4.6% vs 13.8%; EPS growth 185.4% vs 26.2%; TTM ROE 2.4% vs -28.1%; gross margin 20.4% vs 44.1%; operating margin 9.8% vs 23.3% — HLT takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | Even | Value 25 vs 24 |
| Technicals | HLT | Price vs 50-day 7.4% vs 13%; vs 200-day 4% vs 12.8% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 50 vs 50 |
| Analyst expectations | H | Target upside 11.7% vs -3.1% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of H 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 9 points.
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (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: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 18 to 9 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- HLT +9
- 43 vs 52
- 7 sessions ago
- HLT +12
- 39 vs 51
- 30 sessions ago
- HLT +18
- 34 vs 52
- 90 sessions ago
- HLT +11
- 32 vs 43
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 / 3 bearish, conflicted
Only H
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (1.87%)
6 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted
Only HLT
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (0.60%)
- 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
Both carry 4 more signals that do not separate them: BB Upper Band Breach, Keltner Channel Breakout, RSI Overbought, MACD Bullish Crossover.
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.
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +1.4%, AIQ +2 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.82%, 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.
- 1H closes the Quality gap — currently 29 points behind, the largest single contributor to HLT's edge.
- 2H's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3HLT's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 6 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 9 points over 30 sessions, and a further 9-point move would eliminate HLT's advantage entirely.
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
HLT leads on balance| Metric | H | HLT |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 4.6% | 13.8% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 185.4% | 26.2% |
| Gross margin | 20.4% | 44.1% |
| Operating margin | 9.8% | 23.3% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 2.4% | -28.1% |
| Debt to equity | 1.36 | -2.22 |
Performance
HLT leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | H | HLT |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 8.1% | 7.8% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 11.6% | 13.5% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -6% | 10.8% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 3.2% | 5.6% |
| Year to date | 9.9% | 21.4% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 22.2% | 34.4% |
Technicals
HLT has the stronger structure| Metric | H | HLT |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 74 | 84.1 |
| ADX (14) | 24.8 | 30.9 |
| Price vs 50-day | 7.4% | 13% |
| Price vs 200-day | 4% | 12.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 27.8% | 24.5% |
Risk
Split| Metric | H | HLT |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.91 | 0.58 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.62 | 1.3 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.03 | 2.28 |
| Max drawdown | -23.4% | -13.6% |
| Current drawdown | -12.8% | 0% |
| Annualized volatility | 34.3% | 24.2% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3% | -2.3% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, H or HLT?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, HLT is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 52 against H's 43. The edge comes from quality and momentum. 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 H or HLT the better buy right now?
HLT carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor HLT over H?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. HLT leads Quality by 29 points; HLT leads Momentum by 5 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, H or HLT?
Analyst price targets imply +11.7% upside for H and -3.1% for HLT, so the Street currently favors H. 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, H or HLT?
Neither name separates on the peer-relative Value factor. The two are level on Value. 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, H or HLT?
H 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, H or HLT?
HLT on the Momentum factor, by 5 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, H or HLT?
HLT is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. HLT 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 H more profitable than HLT?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 20.4% vs 44.1%; operating margin 9.8% vs 23.3%; ttm roe 2.4% vs -28.1%. H leads on one measure and HLT on two measures, 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 H getting stronger or weaker?
HLT lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 18 to 9 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the H vs HLT verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: H closes the Quality gap — currently 29 points behind, the largest single contributor to HLT's edge; h's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; HLT's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 6 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 9 points over 30 sessions, and a further 9-point move would eliminate HLT's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about H and HLT?
H: 2 bullish / 3 bearish, 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 H is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On HLT it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare H 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.