LYV vs NCLH Stock Comparison
Compare LYV and NCLH across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between LYV and NCLH?
LYV leads the current stock comparison as Live Nation Entertainment, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from risk resilience and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. vs Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings Ltd.
LYV leads
LYV leads by 4 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Quality, but the lead has narrowed from 12 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors NCLH on target upside.
Fragile: 4 of 6 evidence groups support LYV, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Live Nation Entertainment, Inc.
Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings Ltd.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors LYV over NCLH, 50 versus 46 as of Sep 11, 2026. LYV's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and quality, while NCLH holds the stronger value profile. LYV also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors NCLH. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor LYV today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 4 points. LYV lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 12 to 4 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. and Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings Ltd. 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 NCLH 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.
- Risk Resilience57 vs 20LYV +37
- Value57 vs 70NCLH +13
- Quality60 vs 51LYV +9
- Momentum26 vs 25Even
4 of 6 evidence groups favor LYV. LYV’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and quality; NCLH keeps a meaningful value 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.
No factor moved materially.
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 NCLH both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
LYV (Live Nation Entertainment, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and quality.
NCLH (Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings Ltd.): the counter-case, on value, valuation, analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 34.9% against 23.3%.
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
LYVLYV on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
LYVLYV on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
NCLHNCLH on the peer-relative Value factor, by 13 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
LYVLYV on Risk Resilience, by 37 points.
Analyst upside
NCLHNCLH on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors LYV, analyst targets favor NCLH. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | LYV | NCLH | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +16.7% | +40% | NCLH has more room |
| Target dispersion | +61.4% | +149.4% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 11 | 13 | 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.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
4 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 46 |
| Fundamentals | LYVon balance | revenue growth 102.1% vs 13.3%; EPS growth 157.3% vs 108.7%; TTM ROE 73.3% vs 32.3%; gross margin 44.8% vs 42.5%; operating margin 3.4% vs 15.1% — LYV takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | NCLH | Value 57 vs 70 |
| Technicals | LYV | Price vs 50-day -5.9% vs -19.3%; vs 200-day 5.6% vs -26.4% |
| Risk Resilience | LYV | Risk Resilience 57 vs 20 |
| Analyst expectations | NCLH | Target upside 16.7% vs 40% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of LYV and NCLH 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 4 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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 12 to 4 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- LYV +4
- 50 vs 46
- 7 sessions ago
- LYV +6
- 51 vs 45
- 30 sessions ago
- LYV +12
- 58 vs 46
- 90 sessions ago
- LYV +13
- 62 vs 49
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on Jun 9 when LYV moved ahead of NCLH.
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 / 5 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (7.82%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, 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 +1.72%, 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.
- 1NCLH closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 37 points behind, the largest single contributor to LYV's edge.
- 2NCLH's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend 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 8 points over 30 sessions, and a further 4-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 | NCLH |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 102.1% | 13.3% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 157.3% | 108.7% |
| Gross margin | 44.8% | 42.5% |
| Operating margin | 3.4% | 15.1% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 73.3% | 32.3% |
| Debt to equity | 137.04 | 5.84 |
Performance
LYV leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | LYV | NCLH |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -5.3% | -6.4% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -8.2% | -23% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 1.5% | -18.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 2.6% | -28.8% |
| Year to date | 19.4% | -31.6% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 2.4% | -40.6% |
Technicals
LYV has the stronger structure| Metric | LYV | NCLH |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 29.3 | 19.4 |
| ADX (14) | 13.8 | 30.2 |
| Price vs 50-day | -5.9% | -19.3% |
| Price vs 200-day | 5.6% | -26.4% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 23.3% | 34.9% |
Risk
LYV is the more resilient| Metric | LYV | NCLH |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.66 | 1.94 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.03 | -0.83 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.04 | -1.29 |
| Max drawdown | -27.8% | -45.9% |
| Current drawdown | -9.8% | -45.9% |
| Annualized volatility | 31.3% | 54.2% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.7% | -4.7% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, LYV or NCLH?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, LYV is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 50 against NCLH's 46. The edge comes from risk resilience and quality. NCLH 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 LYV or NCLH the better buy right now?
LYV carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 4 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 4 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor LYV over NCLH?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. LYV leads Risk Resilience by 37 points; NCLH leads Value by 13 points; LYV leads Quality by 9 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, LYV or NCLH?
Analyst price targets imply +16.7% upside for LYV and +40% for NCLH, so the Street currently favors NCLH. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors LYV. 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, LYV or NCLH?
NCLH is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. NCLH on the peer-relative Value factor, by 13 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 NCLH?
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 NCLH?
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, LYV or NCLH?
LYV is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. LYV on Risk Resilience, by 37 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 NCLH?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 44.8% vs 42.5%; operating margin 3.4% vs 15.1%; ttm roe 73.3% vs 32.3%. LYV leads on two measures and NCLH 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 NCLH getting stronger or weaker?
LYV lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 12 to 4 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 2 times in that window, most recently on 2026-06-09, when LYV moved ahead of NCLH.
What would change the LYV vs NCLH verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: NCLH closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 37 points behind, the largest single contributor to LYV's edge; NCLH's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend 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 8 points over 30 sessions, and a further 4-point move would eliminate LYV's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about LYV and NCLH?
LYV: 2 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted. NCLH: 1 bullish / 5 bearish / 2 neutral, 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 NCLH it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare LYV and NCLH 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.