MAR vs MGM Stock Comparison
MAR currently leads MGM in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 50 vs 42. The clearest difference is momentum, while MGM has the stronger value profile.
What is the main difference between MAR and MGM?
MAR leads the current stock comparison as Marriott International, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Marriott International, Inc. vs MGM Resorts International
MAR leads
MAR leads by 8 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Risk Resilience. Wall Street currently favors MGM on target upside.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support MAR, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Marriott International, Inc.
MGM Resorts International
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors MAR over MGM, 50 versus 42 as of Oct 22, 2026. MAR's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and risk resilience, while MGM holds the stronger value profile. MAR also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors MGM. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor MAR today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. MAR lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 8 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Marriott International, Inc. and MGM Resorts International 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 MAR and MGM 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.
- Momentum91 vs 26MAR +65
- Value26 vs 64MGM +38
- Risk Resilience54 vs 38MAR +16
- Quality39 vs 37Even
3 of 6 evidence groups favor MAR. MAR’s edge is concentrated in momentum and risk resilience; MGM 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: Momentum +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; its 6 active signals are unchanged.
MAR's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — MAR and MGM both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
MAR (Marriott International, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and risk resilience.
MGM (MGM Resorts International): the counter-case, on value, fundamentals, valuation — but at materially higher volatility, 42.8% against 19.1%.
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
MARMAR on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
MGMMGM on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
MGMMGM on the peer-relative Value factor, by 38 points.
Momentum
MARMAR on the Momentum factor, by 65 points.
Lower downside
MARMAR on Risk Resilience, by 16 points.
Analyst upside
MGMMGM on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors MAR, analyst targets favor MGM. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | MAR | MGM | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -3.9% | +61.1% | MGM has more room |
| Target dispersion | +27.3% | +53.7% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 12 | 11 | 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
3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor MAR. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | MAR | 50 vs 42 |
| Fundamentals | MGMon balance | EPS growth 18.3% vs 128.6%; TTM ROE -66.7% vs 17%; gross margin 20.2% vs 44.2%; operating margin 15.8% vs 5.7% — MGM takes 3 of 4 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | MGM | Value 26 vs 64 |
| Technicals | MAR | Price vs 50-day 14.2% vs -22.4%; vs 200-day 12.5% vs -26.5% |
| Risk Resilience | MAR | Risk Resilience 54 vs 38 |
| Analyst expectations | MGM | Target upside -3.9% vs 61.1% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of MAR and MGM 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 8 points.
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 MAR.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20MAR lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 8 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- MAR +8
- 50 vs 42
- 7 sessions ago
- MAR +8
- 50 vs 42
- 30 sessions ago
- MAR +8
- 50 vs 42
- 90 sessions ago
- MGM +12
- 35 vs 47
The lead changed hands once in this window, most recently on Sep 23 when MAR moved ahead of MGM.
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.
5 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted
Only MAR
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (0.18%)
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
2 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only MGM
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (5.58%)
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (3.56%)
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
- 52-Week Low Proximity — bearish, risk, long horizon (1.1%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
Both carry 1 more signal that do not separate them: MACD Bullish Crossover.
MAR 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 +1.68%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -0.1%, 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.
- 1MGM closes the Momentum gap — currently 65 points behind, the largest single contributor to MAR's edge.
- 2MGM's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3MAR's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 5 bullish and 2 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
MGM leads on balance| Metric | MAR | MGM |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 6.3% | -0.1% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 18.3% | 128.6% |
| Gross margin | 20.2% | 44.2% |
| Operating margin | 15.8% | 5.7% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -66.7% | 17% |
| Debt to equity | -3.93 | 11.87 |
Performance
MAR leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | MAR | MGM |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 6.9% | -1.7% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 14.1% | -25.7% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 7.4% | -36.5% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 5.8% | -25.9% |
| Year to date | 28.1% | -20.6% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 49.6% | -8.8% |
Technicals
MAR has the stronger structure| Metric | MAR | MGM |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 84.8 | 28.9 |
| ADX (14) | 33.8 | 60.2 |
| Price vs 50-day | 14.2% | -22.4% |
| Price vs 200-day | 12.5% | -26.5% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 19.1% | 42.8% |
Risk
MAR is the more resilient| Metric | MAR | MGM |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.58 | 0.84 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.54 | -0.14 |
| Sortino ratio | 2.64 | -0.23 |
| Max drawdown | -18.3% | -43.8% |
| Current drawdown | -1.3% | -43% |
| Annualized volatility | 27.2% | 39% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.4% | -3.2% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, MAR or MGM?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, MAR is the stronger of the two as of Oct 22, 2026, scoring 50 against MGM's 42. The edge comes from momentum and risk resilience. MGM 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 MAR or MGM the better buy right now?
MAR carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 22, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor MAR over MGM?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. MAR leads Momentum by 65 points; MGM leads Value by 38 points; MAR leads Risk Resilience by 16 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, MAR or MGM?
Analyst price targets imply -3.9% upside for MAR and +61.1% for MGM, so the Street currently favors MGM. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors MAR. 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, MAR or MGM?
MGM is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. MGM on the peer-relative Value factor, by 38 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, MAR or MGM?
MGM 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, MAR or MGM?
MAR on the Momentum factor, by 65 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, MAR or MGM?
MAR is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. MAR on Risk Resilience, by 16 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 MAR more profitable than MGM?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 20.2% vs 44.2%; operating margin 15.8% vs 5.7%; ttm roe -66.7% vs 17%. MAR leads on one measure and MGM on two measures, 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 MAR's lead over MGM getting stronger or weaker?
MAR lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 8 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has changed hands once in that window, most recently on 2026-09-23, when MAR moved ahead of MGM.
What would change the MAR vs MGM verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: MGM closes the Momentum gap — currently 65 points behind, the largest single contributor to MAR's edge; MGM's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; MAR's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 5 bullish and 2 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 MAR and MGM?
MAR: 5 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted. MGM: 2 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 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 MAR is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On MGM it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare MAR and MGM 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.