LYV vs MSGS Stock Comparison
Compare LYV and MSGS across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between LYV and MSGS?
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 Madison Square Garden Sports Corp.
LYV leads
LYV leads by 10 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Quality, but the lead has narrowed from 13 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 5 of 6 evidence groups support LYV, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Live Nation Entertainment, Inc.
Madison Square Garden Sports Corp.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors LYV over MSGS, 50 versus 40 as of Sep 11, 2026. LYV's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and quality, while MSGS 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 Fragile on stability: the leader's advantage has been narrowing. LYV lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 13 to 10 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. and Madison Square Garden Sports Corp. 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 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.
- Value57 vs 34LYV +23
- Quality60 vs 42LYV +18
- Momentum26 vs 42MSGS +16
- Risk Resilience57 vs 43LYV +14
5 of 6 evidence groups favor LYV. LYV’s edge is concentrated in value and quality; MSGS keeps a meaningful momentum edge.
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: Momentum -11
No new signals fired.
LYV's lead widened by 2 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — LYV and MSGS both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
LYV (Live Nation Entertainment, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and quality.
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
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 23 points.
Momentum
MSGSMSGS on the Momentum factor, by 16 points.
Lower downside
LYVLYV on Risk Resilience, by 14 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 | LYV | MSGS | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +16.7% | +15.5% | LYV has more room |
| Target dispersion | +61.4% | +43.3% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 11 | 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 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 40 |
| Fundamentals | LYVon balance | revenue growth 102.1% vs -35.5%; EPS growth 157.3% vs 242.2%; TTM ROE 73.3% vs -2.7%; gross margin 44.8% vs 27.7%; operating margin 3.4% vs 2.5% — LYV takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | LYV | Value 57 vs 34 |
| Technicals | MSGS | Price vs 50-day -5.9% vs -0.7%; vs 200-day 5.6% vs 18.3% |
| Risk Resilience | LYV | Risk Resilience 57 vs 43 |
| Analyst expectations | LYV | Target upside 16.7% vs 15.5% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of LYV 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 10 points.
- 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
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10LYV lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 13 to 10 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- LYV +10
- 50 vs 40
- 7 sessions ago
- LYV +15
- 51 vs 36
- 30 sessions ago
- LYV +13
- 58 vs 45
- 90 sessions ago
- LYV +16
- 62 vs 46
The lead changed hands once in this window, most recently on Jun 5 when MSGS moved ahead of LYV.
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
1 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (19.18%)
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, 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 -0.01%, AIQ -2 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 Value gap — currently 23 points behind, the largest single contributor to LYV's edge.
- 2MSGS's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum 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 10-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 | MSGS |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 102.1% | -35.5% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 157.3% | 242.2% |
| Gross margin | 44.8% | 27.7% |
| Operating margin | 3.4% | 2.5% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 73.3% | -2.7% |
| Debt to equity | 137.04 | -4.34 |
Performance
MSGS leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | LYV | MSGS |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -5.3% | 1.3% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -8.2% | -5.3% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 1.5% | 1.5% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 2.6% | 23.9% |
| Year to date | 19.4% | 51.6% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 2.4% | 93.2% |
Technicals
MSGS has the stronger structure| Metric | LYV | MSGS |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 29.3 | 44.5 |
| ADX (14) | 13.8 | 15.2 |
| Price vs 50-day | -5.9% | -0.7% |
| Price vs 200-day | 5.6% | 18.3% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 23.3% | 19.9% |
Risk
LYV is the more resilient| Metric | LYV | MSGS |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.66 | 0.55 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.03 | 2.15 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.04 | 4.09 |
| Max drawdown | -27.8% | -10.1% |
| Current drawdown | -9.8% | -5.3% |
| Annualized volatility | 31.3% | 30.2% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.7% | -2.1% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, LYV or MSGS?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, LYV is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 50 against MSGS's 40. The edge comes from value and quality. 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 LYV or MSGS the better buy right now?
LYV carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 5 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the leader's advantage has been narrowing. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor LYV over MSGS?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. LYV leads Value by 23 points; LYV leads Quality by 18 points; MSGS leads Momentum by 16 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, LYV or MSGS?
Analyst price targets imply +16.7% upside for LYV and +15.5% for MSGS, 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, LYV or MSGS?
LYV is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. LYV on the peer-relative Value factor, by 23 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 MSGS?
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 MSGS?
MSGS on the Momentum factor, by 16 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 MSGS?
LYV is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. LYV on Risk Resilience, by 14 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 MSGS?
LYV leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 44.8% vs 27.7%; operating margin 3.4% vs 2.5%; ttm roe 73.3% vs -2.7%.
Is LYV's lead over MSGS getting stronger or weaker?
LYV lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 13 to 10 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has changed hands once in that window, most recently on 2026-06-05, when MSGS moved ahead of LYV.
What would change the LYV vs MSGS verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: MSGS closes the Value gap — currently 23 points behind, the largest single contributor to LYV's edge; MSGS's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum 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 10-point move would eliminate LYV's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about LYV and MSGS?
LYV: 2 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted. MSGS: 1 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 LYV is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On MSGS it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare LYV 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.