MAR vs MSGS Stock Comparison
Compare MAR and MSGS across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between MAR and MSGS?
MSGS leads the current stock comparison as Madison Square Garden Sports Corp., with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Marriott International, Inc. vs Madison Square Garden Sports Corp.
MSGS leads
MSGS leads by 3 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Momentum, but the lead has narrowed from 13 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support MSGS, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Marriott International, Inc.
Madison Square Garden Sports Corp.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors MSGS over MAR, 36 versus 33 as of Sep 6, 2026. MSGS's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and momentum, while MAR holds the stronger risk resilience profile. MSGS also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor MSGS today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 3 points. MSGS lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 13 to 3 points over 30 sessions.
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
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 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.
- Risk Resilience15%53 vs 39MAR +14
- Value30%26 vs 34MSGS +8
- Momentum25%21 vs 29MSGS +8
- Quality30%39 vs 42Even
3 of 6 evidence groups favor MSGS. MSGS’s edge is concentrated in value and momentum; MAR keeps a meaningful risk resilience edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-05, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-04.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
MSGS's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
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
MSGS (Madison Square Garden Sports Corp.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and momentum.
MAR (Marriott International, Inc.): the counter-case, on risk resilience.
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
MSGSMSGS on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
MSGSMSGS on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
MSGSMSGS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 8 points.
Momentum
MSGSMSGS on the Momentum factor, by 8 points.
Lower downside
MARMAR on Risk Resilience, by 14 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 | MAR | MSGS | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +15.5% | +15.8% | Level |
| Target dispersion | +27.3% | +43.3% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 13 | 4 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor MSGS. 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 | 33 vs 36 |
| 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 | MSGS | Price vs 50-day -7% vs -1%; vs 200-day -2.4% vs 19% |
| Risk Resilience | MAR | Risk Resilience 53 vs 39 |
| Analyst expectations | Even | Target upside 15.5% vs 15.8% |
✓ 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 3 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (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 MSGS.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 24 – Sep 5MSGS lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 13 to 3 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- MSGS +3
- 33 vs 36
- 7 sessions ago
- MSGS +3
- 36 vs 39
- 30 sessions ago
- MSGS +13
- 35 vs 48
- 90 sessions ago
- MSGS +10
- 36 vs 46
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on Jun 25 when MSGS moved ahead of MAR.
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 / 1 bearish, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (4.98%)
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
1 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (20.26%)
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
MSGS 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 +0.13%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +1.06%, 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.
- 1MAR closes the Value gap — currently 8 points behind, the largest single contributor to MSGS's edge.
- 2MAR's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 3MSGS's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 10 points over 30 sessions, and a further 3-point move would eliminate MSGS's advantage entirely.
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
MSGS leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | MAR | MSGS |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -4.2% | 0.5% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -4.9% | 0.3% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -11.1% | 1.4% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 3.9% | 24.8% |
| Year to date | 8.5% | 51.2% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 27% | 99.7% |
Technicals
MSGS has the stronger structure| Metric | MAR | MSGS |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 26.9 | 34.5 |
| ADX (14) | 18.7 | 17.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | -7% | -1% |
| Price vs 200-day | -2.4% | 19% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 17.5% | 27.5% |
Risk
MAR is the more resilient| Metric | MAR | MSGS |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.63 | 0.56 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.81 | 2.3 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.41 | 4.38 |
| Max drawdown | -17.2% | -10.1% |
| Current drawdown | -16.4% | -5.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 27.4% | 30.4% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.5% | -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, MSGS is the stronger of the two as of Sep 6, 2026, scoring 36 against MAR's 33. The edge comes from value and momentum. MAR is not without a case — it holds the better risk resilience 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?
MSGS carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 6, 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 3 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor MSGS over MAR?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. MAR leads Risk Resilience by 14 points; MSGS leads Value by 8 points; MSGS leads Momentum 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 +15.5% upside for MAR and +15.8% for MSGS. 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, 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?
MSGS on the Momentum factor, by 8 points. Momentum carries 25% of 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. The Risk Resilience factor weights 15% of 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 MSGS's lead over MAR getting stronger or weaker?
MSGS lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 13 to 3 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-24 and 2026-09-05. The lead has changed hands 2 times in that window, most recently on 2026-06-25, when MSGS moved ahead of MAR.
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: MAR closes the Value gap — currently 8 points behind, the largest single contributor to MSGS's edge; MAR's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it; MSGS's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 10 points over 30 sessions, and a further 3-point move would eliminate MSGS's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about MAR and MSGS?
MAR: 2 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. MSGS: 1 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
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality (30%), Value (30%), Momentum (25%) and Risk (15%). 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.