M vs MAT Stock Comparison
M currently leads MAT in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 60 vs 50. The clearest difference is momentum, while MAT has the stronger quality profile.
What is the main difference between M and MAT?
M leads the current stock comparison as Macy's, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Macy's, Inc. vs Mattel, Inc.
M leads
M leads by 10 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Value, having only recently taken the lead back from MAT.
Fragile: 4 of 6 evidence groups support M, the lead recently changed hands, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors M over MAT, 60 versus 50 as of Oct 31, 2026. M's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and value, while MAT holds the stronger quality profile. M also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor M today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. M lead: Reversed — MAT led by 3 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; M now leads by 10.
Compare Macy's, Inc. and Mattel, Inc. 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 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.
- Momentum70 vs 38M +32
- Value70 vs 62M +8
- Quality45 vs 51MAT +6
- Risk Resilience50 vs 45M +5
4 of 6 evidence groups favor M. M’s edge is concentrated in momentum and value; MAT keeps a meaningful quality edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-28, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-27.
Largest factor move: Momentum -1, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 6 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum -5
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
M's lead widened by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
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
M (Macy's, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and value.
MAT (Mattel, Inc.): the counter-case, on quality, fundamentals — but at materially higher volatility, 74.8% against 30.9%.
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
MM 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
MM on the Momentum factor, by 32 points.
Lower downside
MM on Risk Resilience, by 5 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 | +0.6% | +0.5% | Level |
| Target dispersion | +33% | +51.6% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 4 | 3 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor M. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | M | 60 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% vs 3.2%; vs 200-day 9.7% vs -1.6% |
| Risk Resilience | M | Risk Resilience 50 vs 45 |
| Analyst expectations | Even | Target upside 0.6% vs 0.5% |
✓ 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 moderate at 10 points.
- The lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's signal state is cleanly positive. (supports the conclusion holding)
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 M.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 29 – Oct 28M lead: Reversed — MAT led by 3 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; M now leads by 10.
- Today
- M +10
- 60 vs 50
- 7 sessions ago
- M +3
- 61 vs 58
- 30 sessions ago
- MAT +3
- 57 vs 60
- 90 sessions ago
- MAT +9
- 50 vs 59
The lead changed hands 8 times in this window, most recently on Oct 1 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.
4 bullish / 0 bearish / 2 neutral
Only M
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (5.10%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
0 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral
Only MAT
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (3.85%)
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: Bollinger Band Squeeze, ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode.
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 -2.47%, AIQ 0 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved down over the latest session (price -0.39%, AIQ -1 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.
- 1MAT closes the Momentum gap — currently 32 points behind, the largest single contributor to M's edge.
- 2MAT's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3M's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict.
- 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
M leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | M | MAT |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 1.3% | -9.9% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 4.3% | 20.7% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -4.8% | 0.5% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 23% | 2.6% |
| Year to date | 7.7% | -23% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 26.8% | -17.2% |
Technicals
M has the stronger structure| Metric | M | MAT |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 59.8 | 30.3 |
| ADX (14) | 12.5 | 34.4 |
| Price vs 50-day | 6% | 3.2% |
| Price vs 200-day | 9.7% | -1.6% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 30.9% | 74.8% |
Risk
M is the more resilient| Metric | M | MAT |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.99 | 0.55 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.56 | -0.4 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.02 | -0.47 |
| Max drawdown | -29.9% | -42.9% |
| Current drawdown | -9.4% | -31.1% |
| Annualized volatility | 41% | 43.1% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.8% | -3.2% |
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, M is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 60 against MAT's 50. The edge comes from momentum and value. MAT is not without a case — it holds the better quality 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?
M carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 31, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 4 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 M over MAT?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. M leads Momentum by 32 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 +0.6% upside for M and +0.5% 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?
M on the Momentum factor, by 32 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, M or MAT?
M is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. M on Risk Resilience, by 5 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 M's lead over MAT getting stronger or weaker?
M lead: Reversed — MAT led by 3 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; M now leads by 10. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-29 and 2026-10-28. The lead has changed hands 8 times in that window, most recently on 2026-10-01, 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: MAT closes the Momentum gap — currently 32 points behind, the largest single contributor to M's edge; MAT's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; m's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict; 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: 4 bullish / 0 bearish / 2 neutral. MAT: 0 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral. 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.