MAR vs MSGS Stock Comparison
MAR currently leads MSGS in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 50 vs 46. The clearest difference is momentum, while MSGS has the stronger value profile.
What is the main difference between MAR and MSGS?
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 Madison Square Garden Sports Corp.
MAR leads
MAR leads by 4 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Risk Resilience, having only recently taken the lead back from MSGS. Wall Street currently favors MSGS on target upside.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support MAR, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Marriott International, Inc.
Madison Square Garden Sports Corp.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors MAR over MSGS, 50 versus 46 as of Oct 22, 2026. MAR's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and risk resilience, while MSGS 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 MSGS. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor MAR today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 4 points. MAR lead: Reversed — MSGS led by 1 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; MAR now leads by 4.
Compare Marriott International, Inc. and Madison Square Garden Sports Corp. 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 MSGS 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 67MAR +24
- Risk Resilience54 vs 40MAR +14
- Value26 vs 34MSGS +8
- Quality39 vs 42Even
3 of 6 evidence groups favor MAR. MAR’s edge is concentrated in momentum and risk resilience; MSGS 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.
Largest factor move: Momentum +19
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
MAR's lead narrowed by 5 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — MAR and MSGS 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.
MSGS (Madison Square Garden Sports Corp.): the counter-case, on value, fundamentals, valuation — but at materially higher volatility, 24.9% 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
MSGSMSGS on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
MSGSMSGS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 8 points.
Momentum
MARMAR on the Momentum factor, by 24 points.
Lower downside
MARMAR on Risk Resilience, by 14 points.
Analyst upside
MSGSMSGS 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 MSGS. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | MAR | MSGS | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -3.9% | +12.6% | MSGS has more room |
| Target dispersion | +27.3% | +38.8% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 12 | 4 | 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 46 |
| Fundamentals | MSGSon balance | revenue growth 6.3% vs -35.5%; EPS growth 18.3% vs 242.2%; TTM ROE -66.7% vs -2.7%; gross margin 20.2% vs 27.7%; operating margin 15.8% vs 2.5% — MSGS takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | MSGS | Value 26 vs 34 |
| Technicals | MAR | Price vs 50-day 14.2% vs 3.1%; vs 200-day 12.5% vs 16.7% |
| Risk Resilience | MAR | Risk Resilience 54 vs 40 |
| Analyst expectations | MSGS | Target upside -3.9% vs 12.6% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of MAR and MSGS 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)
- Only 3 of 6 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 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: Reversed — MSGS led by 1 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; MAR now leads by 4.
- Today
- MAR +4
- 50 vs 46
- 7 sessions ago
- MAR +5
- 50 vs 45
- 30 sessions ago
- MSGS +1
- 50 vs 51
- 90 sessions ago
- MSGS +14
- 35 vs 49
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on Sep 30 when MAR moved ahead of MSGS.
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
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
3 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
Only MSGS
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 3 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish, Uptrend Structure Active.
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).
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 5 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -0.25%, AIQ +5 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.
- 1MSGS closes the Momentum gap — currently 24 points behind, the largest single contributor to MAR's edge.
- 2MSGS generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover.
- 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
MSGS leads on balance| Metric | MAR | MSGS |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 6.3% | -35.5% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 18.3% | 242.2% |
| Gross margin | 20.2% | 27.7% |
| Operating margin | 15.8% | 2.5% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -66.7% | -2.7% |
| Debt to equity | -3.93 | -4.34 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | MAR | MSGS |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 6.9% | 2.3% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 14.1% | 4.2% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 7.4% | 4.1% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 5.8% | 23.6% |
| Year to date | 28.1% | 59.8% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 49.6% | 89.3% |
Technicals
MAR has the stronger structure| Metric | MAR | MSGS |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 84.8 | 56.8 |
| ADX (14) | 33.8 | 13.4 |
| Price vs 50-day | 14.2% | 3.1% |
| Price vs 200-day | 12.5% | 16.7% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 19.1% | 24.9% |
Risk
MAR is the more resilient| Metric | MAR | MSGS |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.58 | 0.5 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.54 | 2.16 |
| Sortino ratio | 2.64 | 4.37 |
| Max drawdown | -18.3% | -10.1% |
| Current drawdown | -1.3% | -0.7% |
| Annualized volatility | 27.2% | 29.7% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.4% | -2.1% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, MAR or MSGS?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, MAR is the stronger of the two as of Oct 22, 2026, scoring 50 against MSGS's 46. The edge comes from momentum and risk resilience. MSGS 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 MSGS 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: the AIQ gap is narrow at 4 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor MAR over MSGS?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. MAR leads Momentum by 24 points; MAR leads Risk Resilience by 14 points; MSGS leads Value by 8 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, MAR or MSGS?
Analyst price targets imply -3.9% upside for MAR and +12.6% for MSGS, so the Street currently favors MSGS. 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 MSGS?
MSGS is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. MSGS 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, MAR or MSGS?
MSGS 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 MSGS?
MAR on the Momentum factor, by 24 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 MSGS?
MAR is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. MAR on Risk Resilience, by 14 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 MSGS?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 20.2% vs 27.7%; operating margin 15.8% vs 2.5%; ttm roe -66.7% vs -2.7%. MAR leads on one measure and MSGS 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 MSGS getting stronger or weaker?
MAR lead: Reversed — MSGS led by 1 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; MAR now leads by 4. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has changed hands 2 times in that window, most recently on 2026-09-30, when MAR moved ahead of MSGS.
What would change the MAR vs MSGS verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: MSGS closes the Momentum gap — currently 24 points behind, the largest single contributor to MAR's edge; MSGS generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover; 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 MSGS?
MAR: 5 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted. MSGS: 3 bullish / 1 bearish, 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 MSGS it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare MAR and MSGS 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.