H vs LVS Stock Comparison
LVS currently leads H in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 53 vs 43. The clearest difference is quality, while H has the stronger momentum profile.
What is the main difference between H and LVS?
LVS leads the current stock comparison as Las Vegas Sands Corp., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Hyatt Hotels Corporation vs Las Vegas Sands Corp.
LVS leads
LVS leads by 10 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Value, but the lead has narrowed from 13 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 4 of 6 evidence groups support LVS, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Hyatt Hotels Corporation
Las Vegas Sands Corp.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors LVS over H, 53 versus 43 as of Oct 21, 2026. LVS's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and value, while H holds the stronger momentum profile. LVS also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor LVS today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the leader's advantage has been narrowing. LVS lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 13 to 10 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Hyatt Hotels Corporation and Las Vegas Sands Corp. 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 LVS 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 63LVS +42
- Momentum86 vs 46H +40
- Value25 vs 49LVS +24
- Risk Resilience50 vs 50Even
4 of 6 evidence groups favor LVS. LVS’s edge is concentrated in quality and value; H keeps a meaningful momentum 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 +6
New signals
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum +5
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
LVS's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — H and LVS both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
LVS (Las Vegas Sands Corp.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and value.
H (Hyatt Hotels Corporation): the counter-case, on momentum, technicals.
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
LVSLVS on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
HH on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
LVSLVS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 24 points.
Momentum
HH on the Momentum factor, by 40 points.
Lower downside
LVSLVS carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
LVSLVS 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 | H | LVS | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +11.7% | +58.4% | LVS has more room |
| Target dispersion | +25.6% | +35.3% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 13 | 7 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | H | LVS |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 24.57% | 4.83% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $0.200 | $0.790 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $0.600 | $1.000 |
| Years increased | — | — |
| No cut in window | — | — |
| Cohort rank | not ranked | not ranked |
H grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 24.57% a year against LVS's 4.83%.
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
4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor LVS. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | LVS | 43 vs 53 |
| Fundamentals | LVSon balance | revenue growth 4.6% vs -12%; EPS growth 185.4% vs -37.6%; TTM ROE 2.4% vs 142%; gross margin 20.4% vs 50.9%; operating margin 9.8% vs 23.3% — LVS takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | LVS | Value 25 vs 49 |
| Technicals | H | Price vs 50-day 7.4% vs -9.4%; vs 200-day 4% vs -23.6% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 50 vs 50 |
| Analyst expectations | LVS | Target upside 11.7% vs 58.4% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of H and LVS 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 10 points.
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (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 LVS.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20LVS lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 13 to 10 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- LVS +10
- 43 vs 53
- 7 sessions ago
- LVS +11
- 39 vs 50
- 30 sessions ago
- LVS +13
- 34 vs 47
- 90 sessions ago
- LVS +16
- 32 vs 48
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
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only LVS
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: Death Cross Active, MACD Bullish Crossover.
LVS 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).
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 2 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -1.73%, AIQ +2 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 42 points behind, the largest single contributor to LVS's edge.
- 2H's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3LVS's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 3 points over 30 sessions, and a further 10-point move would eliminate LVS'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
LVS leads on balance| Metric | H | LVS |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 4.6% | -12% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 185.4% | -37.6% |
| Gross margin | 20.4% | 50.9% |
| Operating margin | 9.8% | 23.3% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 2.4% | 142% |
| Debt to equity | 1.36 | 26.27 |
Performance
H leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | H | LVS |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 8.1% | 3.1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 11.6% | -3.9% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -6% | -15.6% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 3.2% | -33.7% |
| Year to date | 9.9% | -41.4% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 22.2% | -22.3% |
Technicals
H has the stronger structure| Metric | H | LVS |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 74 | 53.1 |
| ADX (14) | 24.8 | 42.8 |
| Price vs 50-day | 7.4% | -9.4% |
| Price vs 200-day | 4% | -23.6% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 27.8% | 23.3% |
Risk
Split| Metric | H | LVS |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.91 | 0.61 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.62 | -0.69 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.03 | -0.88 |
| Max drawdown | -23.4% | -48.5% |
| Current drawdown | -12.8% | -45.1% |
| Annualized volatility | 34.3% | 32.9% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3% | -2.8% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, H or LVS?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, LVS is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 53 against H's 43. The edge comes from quality and value. H is not without a case — it holds the better momentum 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 H or LVS the better buy right now?
LVS carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 4 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the leader's advantage has been narrowing. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor LVS over H?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. LVS leads Quality by 42 points; H leads Momentum by 40 points; LVS leads Value by 24 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, H or LVS?
Analyst price targets imply +11.7% upside for H and +58.4% for LVS, so the Street currently favors LVS. 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, H or LVS?
LVS is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. LVS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 24 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, H or LVS?
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 LVS?
H 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, H or LVS?
LVS is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. LVS 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 LVS?
LVS leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 20.4% vs 50.9%; operating margin 9.8% vs 23.3%; ttm roe 2.4% vs 142%.
Is LVS's lead over H getting stronger or weaker?
LVS lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 13 to 10 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 LVS verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: H closes the Quality gap — currently 42 points behind, the largest single contributor to LVS's edge; h's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; LVS's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 3 points over 30 sessions, and a further 10-point move would eliminate LVS's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about H and LVS?
H: 2 bullish / 3 bearish, conflicted. LVS: 1 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 H is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On LVS it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare H and LVS 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.