HLT vs MAR Stock Comparison
HLT currently leads MAR in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 52 vs 50. The clearest difference is quality, while MAR has the stronger risk resilience profile.
What is the main difference between HLT and MAR?
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
Hilton Worldwide Holdings Inc. vs Marriott International, Inc.
HLT leads
HLT leads by 2 AIQ points, primarily on Quality.
Fragile: 1 of 6 evidence groups support HLT, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Hilton Worldwide Holdings Inc.
Marriott International, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors HLT over MAR, 52 versus 50 as of Oct 21, 2026. HLT's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality, while MAR holds the stronger risk resilience profile. HLT also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 1 of 6 covered evidence groups favor HLT today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. HLT lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 2 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Hilton Worldwide Holdings Inc. and Marriott International, 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 HLT and MAR 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.
- Quality50 vs 39HLT +11
- Risk Resilience50 vs 54MAR +4
- Value24 vs 26Even
- Momentum91 vs 91Even
1 of 6 evidence groups favor HLT. HLT’s edge is concentrated in quality; MAR keeps a meaningful risk resilience 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 +3, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
New signals
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (0.0%)
Largest factor move: Momentum +1, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 7 active signals are unchanged.
HLT's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — HLT and MAR both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
HLT (Hilton Worldwide Holdings Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality.
MAR (Marriott International, Inc.): the counter-case, on risk resilience.
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
HLTHLT on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
MARMAR on Risk Resilience, by 4 points.
Analyst upside
EvenAnalyst targets are level or not covered for both names.
AIQ vs Wall Street
Where the systematic read and the analyst consensus line up — and where they do not.
| Measure | HLT | MAR | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -3.1% | -3.8% | Level |
| Target dispersion | +20.5% | +27.3% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 9 | 13 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | HLT | MAR |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 31.95% | 40.63% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $0.150 | $0.480 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $0.600 | $2.640 |
| Years increased | — | — |
| No cut in window | — | — |
| Cohort rank | not ranked | not ranked |
MAR grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 40.63% a year against HLT's 31.95%.
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
1 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 | Even | 52 vs 50 |
| Fundamentals | HLT | revenue growth 13.8% vs 6.3%; EPS growth 26.2% vs 18.3%; TTM ROE -28.1% vs -66.7%; gross margin 44.1% vs 20.2%; operating margin 23.3% vs 15.8% |
| Valuation | Even | Value 24 vs 26 |
| Technicals | Even | Price vs 50-day 13% vs 14.2%; vs 200-day 12.8% vs 12.5% |
| Risk Resilience | MAR | Risk Resilience 50 vs 54 |
| Analyst expectations | Even | Target upside -3.1% vs -3.8% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of HLT and MAR 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 narrow at 2 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 1 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (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 HLT.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20HLT lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 2 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- HLT +2
- 52 vs 50
- 7 sessions ago
- HLT +1
- 51 vs 50
- 30 sessions ago
- HLT +2
- 52 vs 50
- 90 sessions ago
- HLT +8
- 43 vs 35
The lead changed hands 3 times in this window, most recently on Oct 6 when HLT moved ahead of MAR.
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.
6 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted
Only HLT
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (0.0%)
5 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted
No signal that the other name lacks.
Both carry 7 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, BB Upper Band Breach, Keltner Channel Breakout, RSI Overbought, EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish, Uptrend Structure Active, 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.
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).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +1.68%, 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.
- 1MAR closes the Quality gap — currently 11 points behind, the largest single contributor to HLT's edge.
- 2MAR's BB Upper Band Breach resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3HLT's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 6 bullish and 2 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
HLT leads on balance| Metric | HLT | MAR |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 13.8% | 6.3% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 26.2% | 18.3% |
| Gross margin | 44.1% | 20.2% |
| Operating margin | 23.3% | 15.8% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -28.1% | -66.7% |
| Debt to equity | -2.22 | -3.93 |
Performance
MAR leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | HLT | MAR |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 7.8% | 6.9% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 13.5% | 14.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 10.8% | 7.4% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 5.6% | 5.8% |
| Year to date | 21.4% | 28.1% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 34.4% | 49.6% |
Technicals
Split| Metric | HLT | MAR |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 84.1 | 84.8 |
| ADX (14) | 30.9 | 33.8 |
| Price vs 50-day | 13% | 14.2% |
| Price vs 200-day | 12.8% | 12.5% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 24.5% | 19.1% |
Risk
MAR is the more resilient| Metric | HLT | MAR |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.58 | 0.58 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.3 | 1.54 |
| Sortino ratio | 2.28 | 2.64 |
| Max drawdown | -13.6% | -18.3% |
| Current drawdown | 0% | -1.3% |
| Annualized volatility | 24.2% | 27.2% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.3% | -2.4% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, HLT or MAR?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, HLT is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 52 against MAR's 50. The edge comes from quality. MAR is not without a case — it holds the better risk resilience 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 HLT or MAR the better buy right now?
HLT carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 1 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor HLT over MAR?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. HLT leads Quality by 11 points; MAR leads Risk Resilience by 4 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, HLT or MAR?
Analyst price targets imply -3.1% upside for HLT and -3.8% for MAR. 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, HLT or MAR?
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, HLT or MAR?
HLT 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, HLT or MAR?
The two are level on Momentum. 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, HLT or MAR?
MAR is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. MAR on Risk Resilience, by 4 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 HLT more profitable than MAR?
HLT leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 44.1% vs 20.2%; operating margin 23.3% vs 15.8%; ttm roe -28.1% vs -66.7%.
Is HLT's lead over MAR getting stronger or weaker?
HLT lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 2 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has changed hands 3 times in that window, most recently on 2026-10-06, when HLT moved ahead of MAR.
What would change the HLT vs MAR verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: MAR closes the Quality gap — currently 11 points behind, the largest single contributor to HLT's edge; MAR's BB Upper Band Breach resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it; HLT's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 6 bullish and 2 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 HLT and MAR?
HLT: 6 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted. MAR: 5 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 HLT is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On MAR it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare HLT and MAR 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.