MAT vs ONON Stock Comparison
ONON currently leads MAT in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 51 vs 50. The clearest difference is quality, while MAT has the stronger value profile.
What is the main difference between MAT and ONON?
ONON leads the current stock comparison as On Holding AG, with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Mattel, Inc. vs On Holding AG
ONON leads
ONON leads by 1 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Momentum, having only recently taken the lead back from MAT.
Fragile: 2 of 6 evidence groups support ONON, and the lead recently changed hands.
Mattel, Inc.
On Holding AG
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors ONON over MAT, 51 versus 50 as of Oct 31, 2026. ONON's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and momentum, while MAT holds the stronger value profile. ONON also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor ONON today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. ONON lead: Reversed — MAT led by 1 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; ONON now leads by 1.
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 from daily closes; distributions are not included.
Price return comparison
Growth of $10,000, price only
Split-adjusted closes only. Distributions are excluded, which understates the return of any fund or stock that pays them.
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
- Momentum38 vs 42ONON +4
- Risk Resilience45 vs 47Even
2 of 6 evidence groups favor ONON. ONON’s edge is concentrated in quality and momentum; MAT keeps a meaningful value edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-28, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-27.
Largest factor move: Momentum -5
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum -6
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
ONON's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
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
ONON (On Holding AG): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and momentum.
MAT (Mattel, Inc.): the counter-case, on value, valuation, technicals — but at materially higher volatility, 74.8% against 36.2%.
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
ONONONON 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
ONONONON on the Momentum factor, by 4 points.
Lower downside
ONONONON carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
ONONONON 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 | ONON | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +0.5% | +30.7% | ONON has more room |
| Target dispersion | +51.6% | +142.7% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 3 | 20 | 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 ONON. 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 51 |
| 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 3.2% vs 10.3%; vs 200-day -1.6% vs -13.1% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 45 vs 47 |
| Analyst expectations | ONON | Target upside 0.5% vs 30.7% |
✓ 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 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)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 ONON.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 29 – Oct 28ONON lead: Reversed — MAT led by 1 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; ONON now leads by 1.
- Today
- ONON +1
- 50 vs 51
- 7 sessions ago
- MAT +3
- 58 vs 55
- 30 sessions ago
- MAT +1
- 60 vs 59
- 90 sessions ago
- MAT +17
- 59 vs 42
The lead changed hands 4 times in this window, most recently on Oct 27 when ONON moved ahead of MAT.
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.
MAT and ONON carry the same 4 signals, so the signals do not separate them: Bollinger Band Squeeze, Death Cross Active, ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode, MACD Bearish Crossover.
Price vs model alignment
Whether the latest session's price move confirms what the model did over the same session, or contradicts it.
Price and the AIQ Score both moved down over the latest session (price -0.39%, AIQ -1 points).
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +2.99%, 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.
- 1MAT closes the Quality gap — currently 27 points behind, the largest single contributor to ONON's edge.
- 2MAT's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3ONON 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
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) | -9.9% | -6.7% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 20.7% | 7.9% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 0.5% | -13.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 2.6% | -9.6% |
| Year to date | -23% | -31.3% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -17.2% | -23.4% |
Technicals
MAT has the stronger structure| Metric | MAT | ONON |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 30.3 | 36.3 |
| ADX (14) | 34.4 | 30 |
| Price vs 50-day | 3.2% | 10.3% |
| Price vs 200-day | -1.6% | -13.1% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 74.8% | 36.2% |
Risk
Split| Metric | MAT | ONON |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.55 | 1.34 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.4 | -0.35 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.47 | -0.45 |
| Max drawdown | -42.9% | -47.1% |
| Current drawdown | -31.1% | -36.9% |
| Annualized volatility | 43.1% | 49% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.2% | -4.4% |
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, ONON is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 51 against MAT's 50. The edge comes from quality and momentum. MAT is not without a case — it holds the better value 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?
ONON carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 31, 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 ONON over MAT?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. MAT leads Value by 29 points; ONON leads Quality by 27 points; ONON leads Momentum by 4 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 +0.5% upside for MAT and +30.7% for ONON, so the Street currently favors ONON. 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 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?
ONON on the Momentum factor, by 4 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?
ONON is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. ONON carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility. 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 ONON's lead over MAT getting stronger or weaker?
ONON lead: Reversed — MAT led by 1 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; ONON now leads by 1. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-29 and 2026-10-28. The lead has changed hands 4 times in that window, most recently on 2026-10-27, when ONON moved ahead of MAT.
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: MAT closes the Quality gap — currently 27 points behind, the largest single contributor to ONON's edge; MAT's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; ONON 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 ONON?
MAT: 0 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral. ONON: 0 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral. 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.