IVZ vs MCO Stock Comparison
MCO currently leads IVZ in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 52 vs 49. The clearest difference is momentum, while IVZ has the stronger value profile.
What is the main difference between IVZ and MCO?
MCO leads the current stock comparison as Moody's Corporation, with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Invesco Ltd. vs Moody's Corporation
MCO leads
MCO leads by 3 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Quality, having only recently taken the lead back from IVZ. Wall Street currently favors IVZ on target upside.
Fragile: 1 of 6 evidence groups support MCO, the lead recently changed hands, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Invesco Ltd.
Moody's Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors MCO over IVZ, 52 versus 49 as of Oct 31, 2026. MCO's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and quality, while IVZ holds the stronger value profile. MCO also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors IVZ. 1 of 6 covered evidence groups favor MCO today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 3 points. MCO lead: Reversed — IVZ led by 1 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; MCO now leads by 3.
Compare Invesco Ltd. and Moody's Corporation 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 IVZ and MCO 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.
- Value49 vs 24IVZ +25
- Momentum40 vs 62MCO +22
- Quality58 vs 70MCO +12
- Risk Resilience49 vs 52Even
1 of 6 evidence groups favor MCO. MCO’s edge is concentrated in momentum and quality; IVZ keeps a meaningful value edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-30, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-29.
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
MCO's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — IVZ and MCO both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
MCO (Moody's Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and quality.
IVZ (Invesco Ltd.): the counter-case, on value, valuation, 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
MCOMCO on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
IVZIVZ on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
IVZIVZ on the peer-relative Value factor, by 25 points.
Momentum
MCOMCO on the Momentum factor, by 22 points.
Lower downside
EvenDownside measures are level or not covered.
Analyst upside
IVZIVZ on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors MCO, analyst targets favor IVZ. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | IVZ | MCO | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +23.8% | +7.3% | IVZ has more room |
| Target dispersion | +29.1% | +24% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 5 | 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 | IVZ | MCO |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 1.50% | 10.91% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $0.775 | $2.240 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $0.835 | $3.760 |
| Years increased | 3 | 5 |
| No cut in window | No (2) | Yes |
| Cohort rank | not ranked | #79 |
MCO grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 10.91% a year against IVZ's 1.50%. MCO never reduced its regular dividend in the window; IVZ did in 2 years.
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 MCO. 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 | 49 vs 52 |
| Fundamentals | Even | revenue growth 4.6% vs -7.4%; EPS growth 51% vs -15.5%; gross margin 67.4% vs 73.1%; operating margin -7.1% vs 44.9% |
| Valuation | IVZ | Value 49 vs 24 |
| Technicals | MCO | Price vs 50-day -9.5% vs 3.4%; vs 200-day 2.5% vs 2.1% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 49 vs 52 |
| Analyst expectations | IVZ | Target upside 23.8% vs 7.3% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of IVZ and MCO 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 3 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 1 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's signal state is cleanly positive. (supports the conclusion holding)
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 MCO.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jul 1 – Oct 30MCO lead: Reversed — IVZ led by 1 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; MCO now leads by 3.
- Today
- MCO +3
- 49 vs 52
- 7 sessions ago
- MCO +10
- 48 vs 58
- 30 sessions ago
- IVZ +1
- 48 vs 47
- 90 sessions ago
- Level
- 59 vs 59
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on Oct 12 when MCO moved ahead of IVZ.
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 / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
Only IVZ
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
3 bullish / 0 bearish
Only MCO
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, MACD Bullish Crossover.
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 -4.34%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +1.04%, 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.
- 1IVZ closes the Momentum gap — currently 22 points behind, the largest single contributor to MCO's edge.
- 2IVZ's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3MCO's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict.
- 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
Split| Metric | IVZ | MCO |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 4.6% | -7.4% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 51% | -15.5% |
| Gross margin | 67.4% | 73.1% |
| Operating margin | -7.1% | 44.9% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -0.5% | 86.4% |
| Debt to equity | 0.13 | 2.29 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | IVZ | MCO |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -1.9% | -0.8% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -4.9% | 5.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -2.5% | -1% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 11.9% | 3.7% |
| Year to date | 9.2% | -6.6% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 24.7% | -2.8% |
Technicals
MCO has the stronger structure| Metric | IVZ | MCO |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 39.5 | 60.4 |
| ADX (14) | 35.3 | 17.7 |
| Price vs 50-day | -9.5% | 3.4% |
| Price vs 200-day | 2.5% | 2.1% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 26.4% | 26.1% |
Risk
Split| Metric | IVZ | MCO |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.72 | 0.49 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.59 | -0.1 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.91 | -0.14 |
| Max drawdown | -22.7% | -23.6% |
| Current drawdown | -13.9% | -11.6% |
| Annualized volatility | 33.9% | 28.1% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.4% | -2.5% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, IVZ or MCO?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, MCO is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 52 against IVZ's 49. The edge comes from momentum and quality. IVZ 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 IVZ or MCO the better buy right now?
MCO carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 31, 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 3 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor MCO over IVZ?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. IVZ leads Value by 25 points; MCO leads Momentum by 22 points; MCO leads Quality by 12 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, IVZ or MCO?
Analyst price targets imply +23.8% upside for IVZ and +7.3% for MCO, so the Street currently favors IVZ. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors MCO. 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, IVZ or MCO?
IVZ is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. IVZ on the peer-relative Value factor, by 25 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, IVZ or MCO?
IVZ 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, IVZ or MCO?
MCO on the Momentum factor, by 22 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, IVZ or MCO?
The two are close on downside measures. Downside measures are level or not covered. Risk Resilience is a weighted factor in the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is IVZ more profitable than MCO?
MCO leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 67.4% vs 73.1%; operating margin -7.1% vs 44.9%; ttm roe -0.5% vs 86.4%.
Is MCO's lead over IVZ getting stronger or weaker?
MCO lead: Reversed — IVZ led by 1 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; MCO now leads by 3. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-07-01 and 2026-10-30. The lead has changed hands 2 times in that window, most recently on 2026-10-12, when MCO moved ahead of IVZ.
What would change the IVZ vs MCO verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: IVZ closes the Momentum gap — currently 22 points behind, the largest single contributor to MCO's edge; IVZ's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; MCO's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict; 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 IVZ and MCO?
IVZ: 2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. MCO: 3 bullish / 0 bearish. The most decision-relevant rule on IVZ is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On MCO it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare IVZ and MCO 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.