LYV vs MAR Stock Comparison
Compare LYV and MAR across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between LYV and MAR?
LYV leads the current stock comparison as Live Nation Entertainment, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. vs Marriott International, Inc.
LYV leads
LYV leads by 18 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Quality, but the lead has narrowed from 21 points over 30 sessions.
Competitive: 5 of 6 evidence groups support LYV, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Live Nation Entertainment, Inc.
Marriott International, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors LYV over MAR, 50 versus 32 as of Sep 11, 2026. LYV's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and quality. LYV also shows the stronger 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 21 to 18 points over 30 sessions. LYV leads on all four AIQ factor dimensions. Value is itself one of those four, so a sweep is not explained by valuation alone — it deserves additional scrutiny for unmodeled catalysts, expectations or event risk.
Compare Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. and Marriott International, Inc. across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Performance over time
Price-return comparison using available daily close history.
Total return comparison
Growth of $10,000
Based on available close-price history. Distribution reinvestment is not added unless already reflected in the source series.
Compare LYV 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.
- Value57 vs 26LYV +31
- Quality60 vs 39LYV +21
- Momentum26 vs 19LYV +7
- Risk Resilience57 vs 53LYV +4
5 of 6 evidence groups favor LYV. LYV’s edge is concentrated in value and quality.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-10, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-09.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Risk Resilience +1
No new signals fired.
LYV's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — LYV and MAR both carry a full feed there.
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 31 points.
Momentum
LYVLYV on the Momentum factor, by 7 points.
Lower downside
LYVLYV 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 | LYV | MAR | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +16.7% | +16.2% | Level |
| Target dispersion | +61.4% | +27.3% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 11 | 13 | 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 | 50 vs 32 |
| Fundamentals | LYVon balance | revenue growth 102.1% vs 6.3%; EPS growth 157.3% vs 18.3%; TTM ROE 73.3% vs -66.7%; gross margin 44.8% vs 20.2%; operating margin 3.4% vs 15.8% — LYV takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | LYV | Value 57 vs 26 |
| Technicals | LYV | Price vs 50-day -5.9% vs -6.8%; vs 200-day 5.6% vs -4.6% |
| Risk Resilience | LYV | Risk Resilience 57 vs 53 |
| Analyst expectations | Even | Target upside 16.7% vs 16.2% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of LYV and MAR 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 18 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 lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10LYV lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 21 to 18 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- LYV +18
- 50 vs 32
- 7 sessions ago
- LYV +18
- 51 vs 33
- 30 sessions ago
- LYV +21
- 58 vs 37
- 90 sessions ago
- LYV +25
- 62 vs 37
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 / 2 bearish, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (12.32%)
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
2 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (3.99%)
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
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.
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.04%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +1.71%, 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 Value gap — currently 31 points behind, the largest single contributor to LYV's edge.
- 2MAR's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3LYV's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 3 points over 30 sessions, and a further 18-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 | LYV | MAR |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 102.1% | 6.3% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 157.3% | 18.3% |
| Gross margin | 44.8% | 20.2% |
| Operating margin | 3.4% | 15.8% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 73.3% | -66.7% |
| Debt to equity | 137.04 | -3.93 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | LYV | MAR |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -5.3% | -1.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -8.2% | -7.2% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 1.5% | -14.6% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 2.6% | 0.8% |
| Year to date | 19.4% | 6.1% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 2.4% | 22.8% |
Technicals
LYV has the stronger structure| Metric | LYV | MAR |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 29.3 | 22.3 |
| ADX (14) | 13.8 | 24.3 |
| Price vs 50-day | -5.9% | -6.8% |
| Price vs 200-day | 5.6% | -4.6% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 23.3% | 17.7% |
Risk
LYV is the more resilient| Metric | LYV | MAR |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.66 | 0.64 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.03 | 0.8 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.04 | 1.38 |
| Max drawdown | -27.8% | -18.3% |
| Current drawdown | -9.8% | -18.3% |
| Annualized volatility | 31.3% | 27.4% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.7% | -2.5% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, LYV or MAR?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, LYV is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 50 against MAR's 32. The edge comes from value and quality. 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 LYV or MAR the better buy right now?
LYV carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 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 MAR?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. LYV leads Value by 31 points; LYV leads Quality by 21 points; LYV leads Momentum by 7 points. LYV leads on all four AIQ factor dimensions. Value is itself one of those four, so the sweep is not explained by MAR simply being cheaper — it warrants extra scrutiny for unmodeled catalysts, forward expectations or event risk the factors do not capture.
Which has more analyst upside, LYV or MAR?
Analyst price targets imply +16.7% upside for LYV and +16.2% 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, LYV or MAR?
LYV is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. LYV on the peer-relative Value factor, by 31 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, LYV or MAR?
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, LYV or MAR?
LYV on the Momentum factor, by 7 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, LYV or MAR?
LYV is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. LYV 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 LYV more profitable than MAR?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 44.8% vs 20.2%; operating margin 3.4% vs 15.8%; ttm roe 73.3% vs -66.7%. LYV leads on two measures and MAR on one measure, 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 MAR getting stronger or weaker?
LYV lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 21 to 18 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the LYV vs MAR verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: MAR closes the Value gap — currently 31 points behind, the largest single contributor to LYV's edge; MAR's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it; LYV's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 3 points over 30 sessions, and a further 18-point move would eliminate LYV's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about LYV and MAR?
LYV: 2 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted. MAR: 2 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 LYV is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On MAR it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare LYV 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.