MAT vs ONON Stock Comparison
Compare MAT and ONON across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between MAT and ONON?
MAT leads the current stock comparison as Mattel, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Mattel, Inc. vs On Holding AG
MAT leads
MAT leads by 3 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Risk Resilience, but the lead has narrowed from 12 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors ONON on target upside.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support MAT, and its lead is narrowing.
Mattel, Inc.
On Holding AG
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors MAT over ONON, 50 versus 47 as of Sep 11, 2026. MAT's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and risk resilience, while ONON holds the stronger quality profile. MAT also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors ONON. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor MAT today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 3 points. MAT lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 12 to 3 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Mattel, Inc. and On Holding AG 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 ONON 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.
- Value62 vs 33MAT +29
- Quality51 vs 78ONON +27
- Risk Resilience57 vs 49MAT +8
- Momentum30 vs 25MAT +5
3 of 6 evidence groups favor MAT. MAT’s edge is concentrated in value and risk resilience; ONON keeps a meaningful quality 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.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
MAT's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — MAT and ONON both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
MAT (Mattel, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and risk resilience.
ONON (On Holding AG): the counter-case, on quality, fundamentals, analyst expectations.
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
MATMAT on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
ONONONON on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
MATMAT on the peer-relative Value factor, by 29 points.
Momentum
MATMAT on the Momentum factor, by 5 points.
Lower downside
MATMAT on Risk Resilience, by 8 points.
Analyst upside
ONONONON on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors MAT, analyst targets favor ONON. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | MAT | ONON | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +7.1% | +76.8% | ONON has more room |
| Target dispersion | +40% | +130% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 3 | 11 | 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 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 47 |
| Fundamentals | ONON | EPS growth -128.6% vs -3.1%; TTM ROE 19.9% vs 23.2%; gross margin 47.4% vs 64.8%; operating margin 8.5% vs 13.8% |
| Valuation | MAT | Value 62 vs 33 |
| Technicals | MAT | Price vs 50-day -2.9% vs -18.8%; vs 200-day -16.1% vs -31.7% |
| Risk Resilience | MAT | Risk Resilience 57 vs 49 |
| Analyst expectations | ONON | Target upside 7.1% vs 76.8% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of MAT and ONON 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)
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: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 12 to 3 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- MAT +3
- 50 vs 47
- 7 sessions ago
- MAT +10
- 56 vs 46
- 30 sessions ago
- MAT +12
- 54 vs 42
- 90 sessions ago
- MAT +5
- 50 vs 45
The lead changed hands 5 times in this window, most recently on Jul 15 when MAT moved ahead of ONON.
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
1 bullish / 5 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (16.61%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
ONON 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).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +2.09%, 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.
- 1ONON closes the Value gap — currently 29 points behind, the largest single contributor to MAT's edge.
- 2ONON's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3MAT starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 9 points over 30 sessions, and a further 3-point move would eliminate MAT'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
ONON leads on balance| Metric | MAT | ONON |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 30.5% | 0% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -128.6% | -3.1% |
| Gross margin | 47.4% | 64.8% |
| Operating margin | 8.5% | 13.8% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 19.9% | 23.2% |
| Debt to equity | 1.37 | 0.29 |
Performance
MAT leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | MAT | ONON |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -5.7% | -3.4% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -5.7% | -13.4% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -6% | -29.3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -14.3% | -31.9% |
| Year to date | -30.4% | -40.3% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -25.4% | -40.6% |
Technicals
MAT has the stronger structure| Metric | MAT | ONON |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 37 | 21.6 |
| ADX (14) | 22.2 | 34 |
| Price vs 50-day | -2.9% | -18.8% |
| Price vs 200-day | -16.1% | -31.7% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 29.3% | 28.4% |
Risk
MAT is the more resilient| Metric | MAT | ONON |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.63 | 1.33 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.61 | -0.86 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.65 | -1.14 |
| Max drawdown | -41.1% | -47% |
| Current drawdown | -37.7% | -47% |
| Annualized volatility | 39.2% | 48.9% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.1% | -4.3% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, MAT or ONON?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, MAT is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 50 against ONON's 47. The edge comes from value and risk resilience. ONON is not without a case — it holds the better quality 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 ONON the better buy right now?
MAT carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 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 MAT over ONON?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. MAT leads Value by 29 points; ONON leads Quality by 27 points; MAT leads Risk Resilience by 8 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, MAT or ONON?
Analyst price targets imply +7.1% upside for MAT and +76.8% for ONON, so the Street currently favors ONON. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors MAT. 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, MAT or ONON?
MAT is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. MAT on the peer-relative Value factor, by 29 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, MAT or ONON?
ONON 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 ONON?
MAT on the Momentum factor, by 5 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, MAT or ONON?
MAT is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. MAT on Risk Resilience, by 8 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 ONON?
ONON leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 47.4% vs 64.8%; operating margin 8.5% vs 13.8%; ttm roe 19.9% vs 23.2%.
Is MAT's lead over ONON getting stronger or weaker?
MAT lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 12 to 3 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has changed hands 5 times in that window, most recently on 2026-07-15, when MAT moved ahead of ONON.
What would change the MAT vs ONON verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: ONON closes the Value gap — currently 29 points behind, the largest single contributor to MAT's edge; ONON's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; MAT starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 9 points over 30 sessions, and a further 3-point move would eliminate MAT's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about MAT and ONON?
MAT: 0 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral. ONON: 1 bullish / 5 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 MAT is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On ONON it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare MAT and ONON 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.