H vs LYV Stock Comparison
LYV currently leads H in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 59 vs 43. The clearest difference is quality, while H has the stronger momentum profile.
What is the main difference between H and LYV?
LYV leads the current stock comparison as Live Nation Entertainment, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Hyatt Hotels Corporation vs Live Nation Entertainment, Inc.
LYV leads
LYV leads by 16 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Value, but the lead has narrowed from 23 points over 30 sessions.
Competitive: 5 of 6 evidence groups support LYV, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Hyatt Hotels Corporation
Live Nation Entertainment, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors LYV over H, 59 versus 43 as of Oct 21, 2026. LYV's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and value, while H holds the stronger momentum profile. LYV also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor LYV today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader's advantage has been narrowing. LYV lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 23 to 16 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Hyatt Hotels Corporation and Live Nation Entertainment, 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 LYV 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 60LYV +39
- Value25 vs 57LYV +32
- Momentum86 vs 60H +26
- Risk Resilience50 vs 60LYV +10
5 of 6 evidence groups favor LYV. LYV’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 +11
New signals
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
LYV's lead widened by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — H and LYV both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
LYV (Live Nation Entertainment, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and value.
H (Hyatt Hotels Corporation): the counter-case, on momentum, technicals — but at materially higher volatility, 27.8% against 17.7%.
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
LYVLYV on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
LYVLYV on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
LYVLYV on the peer-relative Value factor, by 32 points.
Momentum
HH on the Momentum factor, by 26 points.
Lower downside
LYVLYV on Risk Resilience, by 10 points.
Analyst upside
LYVLYV 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 | LYV | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +11.7% | +14.6% | LYV has more room |
| Target dispersion | +25.6% | +61% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 13 | 11 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor LYV. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | LYV | 43 vs 59 |
| Fundamentals | LYVon balance | revenue growth 4.6% vs 102.1%; EPS growth 185.4% vs 157.3%; TTM ROE 2.4% vs 73.3%; gross margin 20.4% vs 44.8%; operating margin 9.8% vs 3.4% — LYV takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | LYV | Value 25 vs 57 |
| Technicals | H | Price vs 50-day 7.4% vs -0.3%; vs 200-day 4% vs 5.6% |
| Risk Resilience | LYV | Risk Resilience 50 vs 60 |
| Analyst expectations | LYV | Target upside 11.7% vs 14.6% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of H and LYV 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 16 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 narrowing. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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 LYV.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20LYV lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 23 to 16 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- LYV +16
- 43 vs 59
- 7 sessions ago
- LYV +18
- 39 vs 57
- 30 sessions ago
- LYV +23
- 34 vs 57
- 90 sessions ago
- LYV +27
- 32 vs 59
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%)
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
2 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only LYV
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (5.60%)
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: BB Upper Band Breach, MACD Bullish Crossover.
LYV 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 3 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -0.26%, AIQ +3 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 39 points behind, the largest single contributor to LYV's edge.
- 2H's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3LYV's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 7 points over 30 sessions, and a further 16-point move would eliminate LYV'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
LYV leads on balance| Metric | H | LYV |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 4.6% | 102.1% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 185.4% | 157.3% |
| Gross margin | 20.4% | 44.8% |
| Operating margin | 9.8% | 3.4% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 2.4% | 73.3% |
| Debt to equity | 1.36 | 137.04 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | H | LYV |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 8.1% | 2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 11.6% | 2.9% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -6% | -1.8% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 3.2% | 14% |
| Year to date | 9.9% | 22.7% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 22.2% | 15.2% |
Technicals
H has the stronger structure| Metric | H | LYV |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 74 | 61.1 |
| ADX (14) | 24.8 | 8.2 |
| Price vs 50-day | 7.4% | -0.3% |
| Price vs 200-day | 4% | 5.6% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 27.8% | 17.7% |
Risk
LYV is the more resilient| Metric | H | LYV |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.91 | 0.69 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.62 | 0.41 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.03 | 0.61 |
| Max drawdown | -23.4% | -20.1% |
| Current drawdown | -12.8% | -7.3% |
| Annualized volatility | 34.3% | 30.8% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3% | -2.6% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, H or LYV?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, LYV is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 59 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 LYV the better buy right now?
LYV carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 5 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 LYV over H?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. LYV leads Quality by 39 points; LYV leads Value by 32 points; H leads Momentum by 26 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, H or LYV?
Analyst price targets imply +11.7% upside for H and +14.6% for LYV, so the Street currently favors LYV. 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 LYV?
LYV is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. LYV on the peer-relative Value factor, by 32 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 LYV?
LYV 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 LYV?
H on the Momentum factor, by 26 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 LYV?
LYV is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. LYV on Risk Resilience, by 10 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 H more profitable than LYV?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 20.4% vs 44.8%; operating margin 9.8% vs 3.4%; ttm roe 2.4% vs 73.3%. H leads on one measure and LYV 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 LYV's lead over H getting stronger or weaker?
LYV lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 23 to 16 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 LYV verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: H closes the Quality gap — currently 39 points behind, the largest single contributor to LYV's edge; h's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; LYV's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 7 points over 30 sessions, and a further 16-point move would eliminate LYV's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about H and LYV?
H: 2 bullish / 3 bearish, conflicted. LYV: 2 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 H is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On LYV it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare H and LYV 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.