MAR vs NCLH Stock Comparison
NCLH currently leads MAR in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 52 vs 50. The clearest difference is value, while MAR has the stronger momentum profile.
What is the main difference between MAR and NCLH?
NCLH leads the current stock comparison as Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings Ltd., with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Marriott International, Inc. vs Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings Ltd.
NCLH leads
NCLH leads by 2 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Quality.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support NCLH, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Marriott International, Inc.
Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings Ltd.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors NCLH over MAR, 52 versus 50 as of Oct 22, 2026. NCLH's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and quality, while MAR holds the stronger momentum profile. NCLH also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor NCLH today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. NCLH lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 2 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Marriott International, Inc. and Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings Ltd. 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 NCLH 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.
- Value26 vs 70NCLH +44
- Momentum91 vs 51MAR +40
- Risk Resilience54 vs 20MAR +34
- Quality39 vs 51NCLH +12
3 of 6 evidence groups favor NCLH. NCLH’s edge is concentrated in value and quality; MAR keeps a meaningful momentum 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 +5
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
NCLH's lead widened by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — MAR and NCLH both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
NCLH (Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings Ltd.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and quality.
MAR (Marriott International, Inc.): the counter-case, on momentum, risk resilience, technicals.
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
NCLHNCLH on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
NCLHNCLH on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
NCLHNCLH on the peer-relative Value factor, by 44 points.
Momentum
MARMAR on the Momentum factor, by 40 points.
Lower downside
MARMAR on Risk Resilience, by 34 points.
Analyst upside
NCLHNCLH on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
Where the systematic read and the analyst consensus line up — and where they do not.
| Measure | MAR | NCLH | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -3.9% | +27.4% | NCLH has more room |
| Target dispersion | +27.3% | +156.1% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 12 | 14 | 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 NCLH. 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 52 |
| Fundamentals | NCLHon balance | revenue growth 6.3% vs 13.3%; EPS growth 18.3% vs 108.7%; TTM ROE -66.7% vs 32.3%; gross margin 20.2% vs 42.5%; operating margin 15.8% vs 15.1% — NCLH takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | NCLH | Value 26 vs 70 |
| Technicals | MAR | Price vs 50-day 14.2% vs -0.9%; vs 200-day 12.5% vs -17.6% |
| Risk Resilience | MAR | Risk Resilience 54 vs 20 |
| Analyst expectations | NCLH | Target upside -3.9% vs 27.4% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of MAR and NCLH 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 2 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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)
- Signal direction runs against the verdict: the leader is net-bearish while the laggard is net-bullish. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Analyst targets on the leader are widely dispersed. (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 NCLH.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20NCLH lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 2 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- NCLH +2
- 50 vs 52
- 7 sessions ago
- NCLH +2
- 50 vs 52
- 30 sessions ago
- Level
- 50 vs 50
- 90 sessions ago
- NCLH +10
- 35 vs 45
The lead changed hands once in this window, most recently on Sep 28 when MAR moved ahead of NCLH.
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
1 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only NCLH
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (20.80%)
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (4.09%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
Both carry 1 more signal that do not separate them: MACD Bullish Crossover.
NCLH 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 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -0.38%, 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.
- 1MAR closes the Value gap — currently 44 points behind, the largest single contributor to NCLH's edge.
- 2MAR's BB Upper Band Breach resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3NCLH's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 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
NCLH leads on balance| Metric | MAR | NCLH |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 6.3% | 13.3% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 18.3% | 108.7% |
| Gross margin | 20.2% | 42.5% |
| Operating margin | 15.8% | 15.1% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -66.7% | 32.3% |
| Debt to equity | -3.93 | 5.84 |
Performance
MAR leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | MAR | NCLH |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 6.9% | 2.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 14.1% | 10.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 7.4% | -19% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 5.8% | -19% |
| Year to date | 28.1% | -29.9% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 49.6% | -31.5% |
Technicals
MAR has the stronger structure| Metric | MAR | NCLH |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 84.8 | 60.8 |
| ADX (14) | 33.8 | 16.1 |
| Price vs 50-day | 14.2% | -0.9% |
| Price vs 200-day | 12.5% | -17.6% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 19.1% | 37.9% |
Risk
MAR is the more resilient| Metric | MAR | NCLH |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.58 | 1.96 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.54 | -0.5 |
| Sortino ratio | 2.64 | -0.78 |
| Max drawdown | -18.3% | -43.6% |
| Current drawdown | -1.3% | -37.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 27.2% | 54.5% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.4% | -4.7% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, MAR or NCLH?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, NCLH is the stronger of the two as of Oct 22, 2026, scoring 52 against MAR's 50. The edge comes from value and quality. MAR is not without a case — it holds the better momentum 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 NCLH the better buy right now?
NCLH 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 2 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor NCLH over MAR?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. NCLH leads Value by 44 points; MAR leads Momentum by 40 points; MAR leads Risk Resilience by 34 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, MAR or NCLH?
Analyst price targets imply -3.9% upside for MAR and +27.4% for NCLH, so the Street currently favors NCLH. 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 NCLH?
NCLH is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. NCLH on the peer-relative Value factor, by 44 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 NCLH?
NCLH 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 NCLH?
MAR on the Momentum factor, by 40 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 NCLH?
MAR is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. MAR on Risk Resilience, by 34 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 NCLH?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 20.2% vs 42.5%; operating margin 15.8% vs 15.1%; ttm roe -66.7% vs 32.3%. MAR leads on one measure and NCLH 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 NCLH's lead over MAR getting stronger or weaker?
NCLH lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 2 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 2026-09-28, when MAR moved ahead of NCLH.
What would change the MAR vs NCLH verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: MAR closes the Value gap — currently 44 points behind, the largest single contributor to NCLH's edge; MAR's BB Upper Band Breach resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it; NCLH's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 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 NCLH?
MAR: 5 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted. NCLH: 1 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 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 NCLH it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare MAR and NCLH 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.