MCD vs XLY Stock Comparison
McDonald's Corporation vs State Street Consumer Discretionary Select Sector SPDR ETF
XLY leads
XLY leads by 15 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Momentum.
Stable: 4 of 4 evidence groups support XLY, and its current signal state is conflicted.
McDonald's Corporation
State Street Consumer Discretionary Select Sector SPDR ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors XLY over MCD, 56 versus 41 as of Sep 2, 2026. XLY's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and momentum. XLY also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 4 covered evidence groups favor XLY today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. XLY lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 15 points over 30 sessions. XLY leads on all four AIQ factor dimensions. Value is itself one of those four, so a sweep is not explained by valuation alone — it deserves additional scrutiny for unmodeled catalysts, expectations or event risk.
Compare McDonald's Corporation and State Street Consumer Discretionary Select Sector SPDR ETF across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
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.
- Risk Resilience15%43 vs 74XLY +31
- Momentum25%28 vs 46XLY +18
- Quality30%56 vs 68XLY +12
- Value30%36 vs 44XLY +8
4 of 4 evidence groups favor XLY. XLY’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and momentum.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-01, compared against the prior scored session 2026-08-31.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
XLY's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — MCD and XLY both carry a full feed there.
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
XLYXLY on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
EvenGrowth figures are not covered for both names.
Value
XLYXLY on the peer-relative Value factor, by 8 points.
Momentum
XLYXLY on the Momentum factor, by 18 points.
Lower downside
XLYXLY on Risk Resilience, by 31 points.
Analyst upside
EvenAnalyst targets are level or not covered for both names.
AIQ vs Wall Street
Where the systematic read and the analyst consensus line up — and where they do not.
| Measure | MCD | XLY | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +22.4% | — | Level |
| Target dispersion | +31.2% | — | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | — | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 14 | — | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
4 of 4 covered evidence groups favor XLY. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | XLY | 41 vs 56 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | XLY | Value 36 vs 44 |
| Technicals | XLY | Price vs 50-day -3.2% vs -1%; vs 200-day -11.2% vs -0.3% |
| Risk Resilience | XLY | Risk Resilience 43 vs 74 |
| Analyst expectations | Not covered | Not covered |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of MCD and XLY and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion rests on a wide gap and broad agreement. It is unlikely to turn on a single session.
- The AIQ gap is wide at 15 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 4 of 4 covered evidence groups point the same way. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 XLY.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 20 – Sep 1XLY lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 15 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- XLY +15
- 41 vs 56
- 7 sessions ago
- XLY +11
- 40 vs 51
- 30 sessions ago
- XLY +13
- 48 vs 61
- 90 sessions ago
- XLY +9
- 41 vs 50
The lead has not changed hands in this window.
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 / 4 bearish
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (9.83%)
- 52-Week Low Proximity — bearish, risk, long horizon (1.4%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
1 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (0.70%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
XLY 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 +0.22%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.34%, 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.
- 1MCD closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 31 points behind, the largest single contributor to XLY's edge.
- 2MCD's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3XLY's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once.
- 4A regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, 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
Split| Metric | MCD | XLY |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 8.9% | — |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 19% | — |
| Gross margin | 57.4% | — |
| Operating margin | 46% | — |
| Return on equity | -5.6% | — |
| Debt to equity | -53.36 | — |
Technicals
XLY has the stronger structure| Metric | MCD | XLY |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 36.3 | 40.6 |
| ADX (14) | 13.8 | 13.4 |
| Price vs 50-day | -3.2% | -1% |
| Price vs 200-day | -11.2% | -0.3% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 20.3% | 14.9% |
Risk
XLY is the more resilient| Metric | MCD | XLY |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | -0.04 | 1.16 |
| Sharpe ratio | -1.04 | -0.13 |
| Sortino ratio | -1.59 | -0.2 |
| Max drawdown | -23.8% | -15.2% |
| Current drawdown | -22.7% | -6.4% |
| Annualized volatility | 18.5% | 19.4% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2% | -2.1% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, MCD or XLY?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, XLY is the stronger of the two as of Sep 2, 2026, scoring 56 against MCD's 41. The edge comes from risk resilience and momentum. 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 MCD or XLY the better buy right now?
XLY carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 2, 2026, and the comparison is rated Stable — 4 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. A Stable rating means the gap is wide and the evidence is broad, so the conclusion is unlikely to turn on a single session.
Why does the AIQ Score favor XLY over MCD?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. XLY leads Risk Resilience by 31 points; XLY leads Momentum by 18 points; XLY leads Quality by 12 points. XLY leads on all four AIQ factor dimensions. Value is itself one of those four, so the sweep is not explained by MCD simply being cheaper — it warrants extra scrutiny for unmodeled catalysts, forward expectations or event risk the factors do not capture.
Which has more analyst upside, MCD or XLY?
Analyst price targets imply +22.4% upside for MCD and not covered for XLY. 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, MCD or XLY?
XLY is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. XLY on the peer-relative Value factor, by 8 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, MCD or XLY?
Growth figures are not covered for both names. 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, MCD or XLY?
XLY on the Momentum factor, by 18 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, MCD or XLY?
XLY is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. XLY on Risk Resilience, by 31 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 MCD more profitable than XLY?
Margin data is not comparable for both names in the current snapshot.
Is XLY's lead over MCD getting stronger or weaker?
XLY lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 15 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-20 and 2026-09-01. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the MCD vs XLY verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: MCD closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 31 points behind, the largest single contributor to XLY's edge; MCD's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; XLY's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once; a regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
What do the current signals say about MCD and XLY?
MCD: 0 bullish / 4 bearish. XLY: 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 MCD is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On XLY it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare MCD and XLY 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.