M vs MAT Stock Comparison
Compare M and MAT across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between M and MAT?
MAT leads the current stock comparison as Mattel, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from risk resilience and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Macy's, Inc. vs Mattel, Inc.
MAT leads
MAT leads by 2 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Quality.
Fragile: 2 of 6 evidence groups support MAT.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors MAT over M, 50 versus 48 as of Sep 11, 2026. MAT's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and quality, while M holds the stronger value profile. MAT also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor MAT today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. MAT lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 2 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Macy's, Inc. and Mattel, 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 M and MAT 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 Resilience46 vs 57MAT +11
- Value70 vs 62M +8
- Quality45 vs 51MAT +6
- Momentum27 vs 30Even
2 of 6 evidence groups favor MAT. MAT’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and quality; M 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.
Largest factor move: Risk Resilience -3
New signals
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum -2
No new signals fired.
MAT's lead widened by 1 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — M and MAT both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
MAT (Mattel, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and quality.
M (Macy's, Inc.): the counter-case, on value, valuation, 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
MATMAT on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
MATMAT on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
MM on the peer-relative Value factor, by 8 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
MATMAT on Risk Resilience, by 11 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 | M | MAT | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +7.8% | +7.1% | Level |
| Target dispersion | +33.6% | +40% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 5 | 3 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor MAT. 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 | 48 vs 50 |
| Fundamentals | MATon balance | revenue growth -38.2% vs 30.5%; EPS growth -87.2% vs -128.6%; TTM ROE 14.4% vs 19.9%; gross margin 36.5% vs 47.4%; operating margin 4.5% vs 8.5% — MAT takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | M | Value 70 vs 62 |
| Technicals | M | Price vs 50-day -6.1% vs -2.9%; vs 200-day -3.3% vs -16.1% |
| Risk Resilience | MAT | Risk Resilience 46 vs 57 |
| Analyst expectations | Even | Target upside 7.8% vs 7.1% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of M and MAT 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 2 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (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 MAT.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10MAT lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 2 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- MAT +2
- 48 vs 50
- 7 sessions ago
- MAT +2
- 54 vs 56
- 30 sessions ago
- MAT +4
- 50 vs 54
- 90 sessions ago
- M +4
- 54 vs 50
The lead changed hands 7 times in this window, most recently on Sep 9 when MAT moved ahead of M.
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 / 2 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (8.86%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
0 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (14.07%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
M is conflicted, so the timing case there is weaker than the score alone suggests.
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 up while the AIQ Score moved down 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +7.71%, AIQ -1 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +1.45%, 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.
- 1M closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 11 points behind, the largest single contributor to MAT's edge.
- 2M's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3MAT starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals.
- 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
MAT leads on balance| Metric | M | MAT |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -38.2% | 30.5% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -87.2% | -128.6% |
| Gross margin | 36.5% | 47.4% |
| Operating margin | 4.5% | 8.5% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 14.4% | 19.9% |
| Debt to equity | 1.06 | 1.37 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | M | MAT |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -8.6% | -5.7% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -13.8% | -5.7% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -11.5% | -6% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 17.3% | -14.3% |
| Year to date | -7% | -30.4% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 22.3% | -25.4% |
Technicals
M has the stronger structure| Metric | M | MAT |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 32.6 | 37 |
| ADX (14) | 17.5 | 22.2 |
| Price vs 50-day | -6.1% | -2.9% |
| Price vs 200-day | -3.3% | -16.1% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 33.1% | 29.3% |
Risk
MAT is the more resilient| Metric | M | MAT |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.14 | 0.63 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.53 | -0.61 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.95 | -0.65 |
| Max drawdown | -29.9% | -41.1% |
| Current drawdown | -21.8% | -37.7% |
| Annualized volatility | 41.2% | 39.2% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.9% | -3.1% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, M or MAT?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, MAT is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 50 against M's 48. The edge comes from risk resilience and quality. M 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 M or MAT the better buy right now?
MAT carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor MAT over M?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. MAT leads Risk Resilience by 11 points; M leads Value by 8 points; MAT leads Quality by 6 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, M or MAT?
Analyst price targets imply +7.8% upside for M and +7.1% for MAT. 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, M or MAT?
M is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. M on the peer-relative Value factor, by 8 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, M or MAT?
MAT 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, M or MAT?
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, M or MAT?
MAT is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. MAT on Risk Resilience, by 11 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 M more profitable than MAT?
MAT leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 36.5% vs 47.4%; operating margin 4.5% vs 8.5%; ttm roe 14.4% vs 19.9%.
Is MAT's lead over M getting stronger or weaker?
MAT lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 2 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 7 times in that window, most recently on 2026-09-09, when MAT moved ahead of M.
What would change the M vs MAT verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: M closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 11 points behind, the largest single contributor to MAT's edge; m's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; MAT starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals; 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 M and MAT?
M: 2 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted. MAT: 0 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral. 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 M is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On MAT it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare M and MAT 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.