MA vs SQ Stock Comparison
MA currently leads SQ in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 50 vs 49. The clearest difference is risk resilience, while SQ has the stronger value profile.
What is the main difference between MA and SQ?
MA leads the current stock comparison as Mastercard Incorporated, with the clearest separation coming from risk resilience and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Mastercard Incorporated vs Block, Inc.
MA leads
MA leads by 1 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience, having only recently taken the lead back from SQ. Wall Street currently favors SQ on target upside.
Fragile: 2 of 5 evidence groups support MA, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Mastercard Incorporated
Block, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors MA over SQ, 50 versus 49 as of Oct 21, 2026. MA's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience, while SQ holds the stronger value profile. Analyst target upside, however, currently favors SQ. 2 of 5 covered evidence groups favor MA today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. MA lead: Reversed — SQ led by 12 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; MA now leads by 1.
Compare Mastercard Incorporated and Block, 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 MA and SQ 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.
- Value24 vs 46SQ +22
- Quality32 vs 48SQ +16
- Risk Resilience61 vs 57MA +4
2 of 5 evidence groups favor MA. MA’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience; SQ keeps a meaningful value edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-20, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-19.
Largest factor move: Risk Resilience +1, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 7 active signals are unchanged.
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session.
MA's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — MA and SQ both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
MA (Mastercard Incorporated): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience.
SQ (Block, Inc.): the counter-case, on value, quality, valuation.
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
MAMA on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
SQSQ on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
SQSQ on the peer-relative Value factor, by 22 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
MAMA on Risk Resilience, by 4 points.
Analyst upside
SQSQ on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors MA, analyst targets favor SQ. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | MA | SQ | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +5% | +18.4% | SQ has more room |
| Target dispersion | +28.5% | +24.3% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 15 | 8 | 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
2 of 5 covered evidence groups favor MA. 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 | 50 vs 49 |
| Fundamentals | MAon balance | revenue growth 10.5% vs 9.3%; EPS growth 14.5% vs 128.8%; TTM ROE 232.5% vs 1.6%; gross margin 100% vs 46.4%; operating margin 59.8% vs 10.2% — MA takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | SQ | Value 24 vs 46 |
| Technicals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Risk Resilience | MA | Risk Resilience 61 vs 57 |
| Analyst expectations | SQ | Target upside 5% vs 18.4% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of MA and SQ 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 1 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 2 of 5 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has swung materially session to session. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (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 MA.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20MA lead: Reversed — SQ led by 12 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; MA now leads by 1.
- Today
- MA +1
- 50 vs 49
- 7 sessions ago
- MA +1
- 50 vs 49
- 30 sessions ago
- SQ +12
- 37 vs 49
- 90 sessions ago
- SQ +10
- 39 vs 49
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.
6 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
Only MA
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (8.31%)
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (0.0%)
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
No active signals
No signal that the other name lacks.
MA 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 +0.35%, 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.
- 1SQ closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 4 points behind, the largest single contributor to MA's edge.
- 2SQ generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as Golden Cross Active or MACD Bullish Crossover.
- 3MA's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 6 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 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
MA leads on balance| Metric | MA | SQ |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 10.5% | 9.3% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 14.5% | 128.8% |
| Gross margin | 100% | 46.4% |
| Operating margin | 59.8% | 10.2% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 232.5% | 1.6% |
| Debt to equity | 4.39 | 0.3 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | MA | SQ |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 2.6% | — |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 11.2% | — |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 16.6% | — |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 20.5% | — |
| Year to date | 7.8% | — |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 11.3% | — |
Technicals
Split| Metric | MA | SQ |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 80.9 | — |
| ADX (14) | 29.6 | — |
| Price vs 50-day | 7.8% | — |
| Price vs 200-day | 15.8% | — |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 17.3% | — |
Risk
MA is the more resilient| Metric | MA | SQ |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.27 | — |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.39 | — |
| Sortino ratio | 0.59 | — |
| Max drawdown | -18.8% | — |
| Current drawdown | 0% | — |
| Annualized volatility | 22.5% | — |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2% | — |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, MA or SQ?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, MA is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 50 against SQ's 49. The edge comes from risk resilience. SQ 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 MA or SQ the better buy right now?
MA carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 2 of 5 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor MA over SQ?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. SQ leads Value by 22 points; SQ leads Quality by 16 points; MA leads Risk Resilience by 4 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, MA or SQ?
Analyst price targets imply +5% upside for MA and +18.4% for SQ, so the Street currently favors SQ. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors MA. 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, MA or SQ?
SQ is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. SQ on the peer-relative Value factor, by 22 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, MA or SQ?
SQ 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, MA or SQ?
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, MA or SQ?
MA is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. MA 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 MA more profitable than SQ?
MA leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 100% vs 46.4%; operating margin 59.8% vs 10.2%; ttm roe 232.5% vs 1.6%.
Is MA's lead over SQ getting stronger or weaker?
MA lead: Reversed — SQ led by 12 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; MA now leads by 1. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the MA vs SQ verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: SQ closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 4 points behind, the largest single contributor to MA's edge; SQ generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as Golden Cross Active or MACD Bullish Crossover; MA's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 6 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; 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 MA and SQ?
MA: 6 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. SQ: No active signals. 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 MA is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare MA and SQ 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.