MAT vs MHK Stock Comparison
Compare MAT and MHK across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between MAT and MHK?
MAT leads the current stock comparison as Mattel, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Mattel, Inc. vs Mohawk Industries, Inc.
MAT leads
MAT leads by 1 AIQ points, primarily on Quality, having only recently taken the lead back from MHK.
Fragile: 2 of 6 evidence groups support MAT, and the lead recently changed hands.
Mattel, Inc.
Mohawk Industries, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors MAT over MHK, 50 versus 49 as of Sep 11, 2026. MAT's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality, while MHK holds the stronger risk resilience profile. MAT also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor MAT today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. MAT lead: Reversed — MHK led by 6 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; MAT now leads by 1.
Compare Mattel, Inc. and Mohawk Industries, Inc. 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 MAT and MHK 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.
- Quality51 vs 42MAT +9
- Risk Resilience57 vs 63MHK +6
- Momentum30 vs 32Even
- Value62 vs 63Even
2 of 6 evidence groups favor MAT. MAT’s edge is concentrated in quality; MHK keeps a meaningful risk resilience edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-10, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-09.
Largest factor move: Momentum -2
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum -16
No new signals fired.
The lead changed hands: MAT moved ahead of MHK in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — MAT and MHK both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
MAT (Mattel, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality.
MHK (Mohawk Industries, Inc.): the counter-case, on 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
MATMAT on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
MHKMHK on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
MHKMHK on Risk Resilience, by 6 points.
Analyst upside
MATMAT 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 | MAT | MHK | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +7.1% | -6.1% | MAT has more room |
| Target dispersion | +40% | +21.8% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 3 | 6 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor MAT. 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 49 |
| Fundamentals | MATon balance | revenue growth 30.5% vs 9.6%; EPS growth -128.6% vs 69.1%; TTM ROE 19.9% vs 5.5%; gross margin 47.4% vs 24.6%; operating margin 8.5% vs 5.4% — MAT takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | Even | Value 62 vs 63 |
| Technicals | MHK | Price vs 50-day -2.9% vs 2%; vs 200-day -16.1% vs 8.8% |
| Risk Resilience | MHK | Risk Resilience 57 vs 63 |
| Analyst expectations | MAT | Target upside 7.1% vs -6.1% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of MAT and MHK 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 1 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 2 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)
- Signal direction runs against the verdict: the leader is net-bearish while the laggard is net-bullish. (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 MAT.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10MAT lead: Reversed — MHK led by 6 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; MAT now leads by 1.
- Today
- MAT +1
- 50 vs 49
- 7 sessions ago
- MAT +1
- 56 vs 55
- 30 sessions ago
- MHK +6
- 54 vs 60
- 90 sessions ago
- MHK +3
- 50 vs 53
The lead changed hands 8 times in this window, most recently on Sep 10 when MAT moved ahead of MHK.
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.
0 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (14.07%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
2 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (8.82%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
MHK is conflicted, so the timing case there is weaker than the score alone suggests.
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 +1.45%, AIQ 0 points).
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 4 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +2.05%, AIQ -4 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.
- 1MHK closes the Quality gap — currently 9 points behind, the largest single contributor to MAT's edge.
- 2MHK's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 3MAT starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals.
- 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
MAT leads on balance| Metric | MAT | MHK |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 30.5% | 9.6% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -128.6% | 69.1% |
| Gross margin | 47.4% | 24.6% |
| Operating margin | 8.5% | 5.4% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 19.9% | 5.5% |
| Debt to equity | 1.37 | 0.28 |
Performance
MHK leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | MAT | MHK |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -5.7% | -3.9% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -5.7% | -9.2% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -6% | 22.1% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -14.3% | 16.8% |
| Year to date | -30.4% | 13.7% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -25.4% | -9.4% |
Technicals
MHK has the stronger structure| Metric | MAT | MHK |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 37 | 35.6 |
| ADX (14) | 22.2 | 17.5 |
| Price vs 50-day | -2.9% | 2% |
| Price vs 200-day | -16.1% | 8.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 29.3% | 31.3% |
Risk
MHK is the more resilient| Metric | MAT | MHK |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.63 | 1.5 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.61 | -0.12 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.65 | -0.23 |
| Max drawdown | -41.1% | -32.5% |
| Current drawdown | -37.7% | -11.3% |
| Annualized volatility | 39.2% | 39.7% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.1% | -3.3% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, MAT or MHK?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, MAT is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 50 against MHK's 49. The edge comes from quality. MHK 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 MAT or MHK the better buy right now?
MAT carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor MAT over MHK?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. MAT leads Quality by 9 points; MHK leads Risk Resilience by 6 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, MAT or MHK?
Analyst price targets imply +7.1% upside for MAT and -6.1% for MHK, so the Street currently favors MAT. 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, MAT or MHK?
Neither name separates on the peer-relative Value factor. The two are level on Value. 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, MAT or MHK?
MHK 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, MAT or MHK?
The two are level on Momentum. 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, MAT or MHK?
MHK is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. MHK on Risk Resilience, by 6 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 MAT more profitable than MHK?
MAT leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 47.4% vs 24.6%; operating margin 8.5% vs 5.4%; ttm roe 19.9% vs 5.5%.
Is MAT's lead over MHK getting stronger or weaker?
MAT lead: Reversed — MHK led by 6 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; MAT now leads by 1. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has changed hands 8 times in that window, most recently on 2026-09-10, when MAT moved ahead of MHK.
What would change the MAT vs MHK verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: MHK closes the Quality gap — currently 9 points behind, the largest single contributor to MAT's edge; MHK's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it; MAT starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals; 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 MAT and MHK?
MAT: 0 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral. MHK: 2 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 MAT is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On MHK it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare MAT and MHK 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.