LVS vs MSGS Stock Comparison
LVS currently leads MSGS in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 53 vs 46. The clearest difference is quality, while MSGS has the stronger momentum profile.
What is the main difference between LVS and MSGS?
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
Las Vegas Sands Corp. vs Madison Square Garden Sports Corp.
LVS leads
LVS leads by 7 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Value, having only recently taken the lead back from MSGS.
Fragile: 5 of 6 evidence groups support LVS, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Las Vegas Sands Corp.
Madison Square Garden Sports Corp.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors LVS over MSGS, 53 versus 46 as of Oct 22, 2026. LVS's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and value, while MSGS holds the stronger momentum profile. LVS also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor LVS today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. LVS lead: Reversed — MSGS led by 4 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; LVS now leads by 7.
Compare Las Vegas Sands Corp. and Madison Square Garden Sports 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 LVS and MSGS 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.
- Quality63 vs 42LVS +21
- Momentum46 vs 67MSGS +21
- Value49 vs 34LVS +15
- Risk Resilience50 vs 40LVS +10
5 of 6 evidence groups favor LVS. LVS’s edge is concentrated in quality and value; MSGS 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 +5
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +19
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
LVS's lead narrowed by 3 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — LVS and MSGS 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.
MSGS (Madison Square Garden Sports Corp.): 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
MSGSMSGS on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
LVSLVS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 15 points.
Momentum
MSGSMSGS on the Momentum factor, by 21 points.
Lower downside
LVSLVS on Risk Resilience, by 10 points.
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 | LVS | MSGS | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +58.4% | +12.6% | LVS has more room |
| Target dispersion | +35.3% | +38.8% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 7 | 4 | 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 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 | 53 vs 46 |
| Fundamentals | LVSon balance | revenue growth -12% vs -35.5%; EPS growth -37.6% vs 242.2%; TTM ROE 142% vs -2.7%; gross margin 50.9% vs 27.7%; operating margin 23.3% vs 2.5% — LVS takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | LVS | Value 49 vs 34 |
| Technicals | MSGS | Price vs 50-day -9.4% vs 3.1%; vs 200-day -23.6% vs 16.7% |
| Risk Resilience | LVS | Risk Resilience 50 vs 40 |
| Analyst expectations | LVS | Target upside 58.4% vs 12.6% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of LVS and MSGS 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 7 points.
- 5 of 6 covered evidence groups point the same way. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Signal direction runs against the verdict: the leader is net-bearish while the laggard is net-bullish. (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: Reversed — MSGS led by 4 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; LVS now leads by 7.
- Today
- LVS +7
- 53 vs 46
- 7 sessions ago
- LVS +5
- 50 vs 45
- 30 sessions ago
- MSGS +4
- 47 vs 51
- 90 sessions ago
- MSGS +1
- 48 vs 49
The lead changed hands 7 times in this window, most recently on Sep 24 when MSGS moved ahead of LVS.
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.
1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only LVS
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (20.62%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
3 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
Only MSGS
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (12.88%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
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 is down while the AIQ Score moved up 2 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -1.73%, AIQ +2 points).
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 5 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -0.25%, AIQ +5 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.
- 1MSGS closes the Quality gap — currently 21 points behind, the largest single contributor to LVS's edge.
- 2MSGS generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover.
- 3LVS's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 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
LVS leads on balance| Metric | LVS | MSGS |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -12% | -35.5% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -37.6% | 242.2% |
| Gross margin | 50.9% | 27.7% |
| Operating margin | 23.3% | 2.5% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 142% | -2.7% |
| Debt to equity | 26.27 | -4.34 |
Performance
MSGS leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | LVS | MSGS |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 3.1% | 2.3% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -3.9% | 4.2% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -15.6% | 4.1% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -33.7% | 23.6% |
| Year to date | -41.4% | 59.8% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -22.3% | 89.3% |
Technicals
MSGS has the stronger structure| Metric | LVS | MSGS |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 53.1 | 56.8 |
| ADX (14) | 42.8 | 13.4 |
| Price vs 50-day | -9.4% | 3.1% |
| Price vs 200-day | -23.6% | 16.7% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 23.3% | 24.9% |
Risk
LVS is the more resilient| Metric | LVS | MSGS |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.61 | 0.5 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.69 | 2.16 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.88 | 4.37 |
| Max drawdown | -48.5% | -10.1% |
| Current drawdown | -45.1% | -0.7% |
| Annualized volatility | 32.9% | 29.7% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.8% | -2.1% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, LVS or MSGS?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, LVS is the stronger of the two as of Oct 22, 2026, scoring 53 against MSGS's 46. The edge comes from quality and value. MSGS 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 LVS or MSGS the better buy right now?
LVS carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 22, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 5 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor LVS over MSGS?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. LVS leads Quality by 21 points; MSGS leads Momentum by 21 points; LVS leads Value by 15 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, LVS or MSGS?
Analyst price targets imply +58.4% upside for LVS and +12.6% for MSGS, 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, LVS or MSGS?
LVS is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. LVS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 15 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, LVS or MSGS?
MSGS 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, LVS or MSGS?
MSGS on the Momentum factor, by 21 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, LVS or MSGS?
LVS is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. LVS 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 LVS more profitable than MSGS?
LVS leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 50.9% vs 27.7%; operating margin 23.3% vs 2.5%; ttm roe 142% vs -2.7%.
Is LVS's lead over MSGS getting stronger or weaker?
LVS lead: Reversed — MSGS led by 4 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; LVS now leads by 7. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has changed hands 7 times in that window, most recently on 2026-09-24, when MSGS moved ahead of LVS.
What would change the LVS vs MSGS verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: MSGS closes the Quality gap — currently 21 points behind, the largest single contributor to LVS's edge; MSGS generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover; LVS's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 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 LVS and MSGS?
LVS: 1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. MSGS: 3 bullish / 1 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 LVS is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On MSGS it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare LVS and MSGS 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.