MAR vs RCL Stock Comparison
Compare MAR and RCL across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between MAR and RCL?
RCL leads the current stock comparison as Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Marriott International, Inc. vs Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd.
RCL leads
RCL leads by 6 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Value, but the lead has narrowed from 14 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 4 of 6 evidence groups support RCL, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Marriott International, Inc.
Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors RCL over MAR, 39 versus 33 as of Sep 6, 2026. RCL's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and value, while MAR holds the stronger risk resilience profile. RCL also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor RCL today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the leader's advantage has been narrowing. RCL lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 14 to 6 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Marriott International, Inc. and Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. 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 RCL 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.
- Quality30%39 vs 61RCL +22
- Risk Resilience15%53 vs 33MAR +20
- Value30%26 vs 42RCL +16
- Momentum25%21 vs 13MAR +8
4 of 6 evidence groups favor RCL. RCL’s edge is concentrated in quality and value; 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.
RCL's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — MAR and RCL both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
RCL (Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and value.
MAR (Marriott International, Inc.): the counter-case, on risk resilience, momentum, 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
RCLRCL on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
RCLRCL on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
RCLRCL on the peer-relative Value factor, by 16 points.
Momentum
MARMAR on the Momentum factor, by 8 points.
Lower downside
MARMAR on Risk Resilience, by 20 points.
Analyst upside
RCLRCL 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 | RCL | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +15.5% | +30.3% | RCL has more room |
| Target dispersion | +27.3% | +39.1% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 13 | 11 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor RCL. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | RCL | 33 vs 39 |
| Fundamentals | RCL | revenue growth 6.3% vs 8.5%; EPS growth 18.3% vs 20.6%; TTM ROE -66.7% vs 43.8%; gross margin 20.2% vs 46.6%; operating margin 15.8% vs 27.3% |
| Valuation | RCL | Value 26 vs 42 |
| Technicals | MAR | Price vs 50-day -7% vs -10.8%; vs 200-day -2.4% vs -7.9% |
| Risk Resilience | MAR | Risk Resilience 53 vs 33 |
| Analyst expectations | RCL | Target upside 15.5% vs 30.3% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of MAR and RCL 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 6 points.
- 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 RCL.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 24 – Sep 5RCL lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 14 to 6 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- RCL +6
- 33 vs 39
- 7 sessions ago
- RCL +2
- 36 vs 38
- 30 sessions ago
- RCL +14
- 35 vs 49
- 90 sessions ago
- RCL +12
- 36 vs 48
The lead changed hands 8 times in this window, most recently on Aug 31 when RCL 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
2 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (3.28%)
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
RCL 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 -0.14%, 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 Quality gap — currently 22 points behind, the largest single contributor to RCL's edge.
- 2MAR's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 3RCL's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 8 points over 30 sessions, and a further 6-point move would eliminate RCL'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
RCL leads on balance| Metric | MAR | RCL |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 6.3% | 8.5% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 18.3% | 20.6% |
| Gross margin | 20.2% | 46.6% |
| Operating margin | 15.8% | 27.3% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -66.7% | 43.8% |
| Debt to equity | -3.93 | 2.3 |
Performance
MAR leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | MAR | RCL |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -4.2% | -5.1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -4.9% | -17.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -11.1% | -5.3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 3.9% | -4.6% |
| Year to date | 8.5% | -4.9% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 27% | -25.3% |
Technicals
MAR has the stronger structure| Metric | MAR | RCL |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 26.9 | 13.7 |
| ADX (14) | 18.7 | 25.7 |
| Price vs 50-day | -7% | -10.8% |
| Price vs 200-day | -2.4% | -7.9% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 17.5% | 24.7% |
Risk
MAR is the more resilient| Metric | MAR | RCL |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.63 | 1.55 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.81 | -0.51 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.41 | -0.97 |
| Max drawdown | -17.2% | -31.5% |
| Current drawdown | -16.4% | -26.4% |
| Annualized volatility | 27.4% | 46.8% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.5% | -4.2% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, MAR or RCL?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, RCL is the stronger of the two as of Sep 6, 2026, scoring 39 against MAR's 33. The edge comes from quality and value. 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 RCL the better buy right now?
RCL carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 6, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 4 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the leader's advantage has been narrowing. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor RCL over MAR?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. RCL leads Quality by 22 points; MAR leads Risk Resilience by 20 points; RCL leads Value by 16 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, MAR or RCL?
Analyst price targets imply +15.5% upside for MAR and +30.3% for RCL, so the Street currently favors RCL. 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 RCL?
RCL is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. RCL on the peer-relative Value factor, by 16 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 RCL?
RCL 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 RCL?
MAR 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 RCL?
MAR is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. MAR on Risk Resilience, by 20 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 RCL?
RCL leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 20.2% vs 46.6%; operating margin 15.8% vs 27.3%; ttm roe -66.7% vs 43.8%.
Is RCL's lead over MAR getting stronger or weaker?
RCL lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 14 to 6 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 8 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-31, when RCL moved ahead of MAR.
What would change the MAR vs RCL verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: MAR closes the Quality gap — currently 22 points behind, the largest single contributor to RCL's edge; MAR's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it; RCL's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 8 points over 30 sessions, and a further 6-point move would eliminate RCL's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about MAR and RCL?
MAR: 2 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. RCL: 2 bullish / 2 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 RCL it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare MAR and RCL 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.