MGM vs RCL Stock Comparison
Compare MGM and RCL across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between MGM and RCL?
MGM leads the current stock comparison as MGM Resorts International, with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
MGM Resorts International vs Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd.
MGM leads
MGM leads by 7 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Risk Resilience, having only recently taken the lead back from RCL. Wall Street currently favors RCL on target upside.
Fragile: 4 of 6 evidence groups support MGM, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
MGM Resorts International
Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors MGM over RCL, 46 versus 39 as of Sep 6, 2026. MGM's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and risk resilience, while RCL holds the stronger quality profile. MGM also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors RCL. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor MGM today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. MGM lead: Reversed — RCL led by 2 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; MGM now leads by 7.
Compare MGM Resorts International 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 MGM 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%37 vs 61RCL +24
- Value30%64 vs 42MGM +22
- Risk Resilience15%54 vs 33MGM +21
- Momentum25%31 vs 13MGM +18
4 of 6 evidence groups favor MGM. MGM’s edge is concentrated in value and risk resilience; RCL keeps a meaningful quality 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.
MGM's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — MGM and RCL both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
MGM (MGM Resorts International): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and risk resilience.
RCL (Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd.): the counter-case, on quality, fundamentals, analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 24.7% against 18.2%.
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
MGMMGM on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
MGMMGM on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
MGMMGM on the peer-relative Value factor, by 22 points.
Momentum
MGMMGM on the Momentum factor, by 18 points.
Lower downside
MGMMGM on Risk Resilience, by 21 points.
Analyst upside
RCLRCL on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors MGM, analyst targets favor RCL. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | MGM | RCL | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +10.8% | +30.3% | RCL has more room |
| Target dispersion | +54.8% | +39.1% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 11 | 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
4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor MGM. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | MGM | 46 vs 39 |
| Fundamentals | RCLon balance | EPS growth 128.6% vs 20.6%; TTM ROE 17% vs 43.8%; gross margin 44.2% vs 46.6%; operating margin 5.7% vs 27.3% — RCL takes 3 of 4 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | MGM | Value 64 vs 42 |
| Technicals | MGM | Price vs 50-day -8.3% vs -10.8%; vs 200-day 4.1% vs -7.9% |
| Risk Resilience | MGM | Risk Resilience 54 vs 33 |
| Analyst expectations | RCL | Target upside 10.8% vs 30.3% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of MGM 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 7 points.
- The lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (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 MGM.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 24 – Sep 5MGM lead: Reversed — RCL led by 2 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; MGM now leads by 7.
- Today
- MGM +7
- 46 vs 39
- 7 sessions ago
- MGM +8
- 46 vs 38
- 30 sessions ago
- RCL +2
- 47 vs 49
- 90 sessions ago
- MGM +4
- 52 vs 48
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on Aug 17 when MGM moved ahead of RCL.
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 / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (13.54%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, 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
MGM 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 -0.14%, 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.
- 1RCL closes the Value gap — currently 22 points behind, the largest single contributor to MGM's edge.
- 2RCL's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3MGM's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 1 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
RCL leads on balance| Metric | MGM | RCL |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -0.1% | 8.5% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 128.6% | 20.6% |
| Gross margin | 44.2% | 46.6% |
| Operating margin | 5.7% | 27.3% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 17% | 43.8% |
| Debt to equity | 11.87 | 2.3 |
Performance
MGM leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | MGM | RCL |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -2.5% | -5.1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -7.3% | -17.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -13.2% | -5.3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 15.9% | -4.6% |
| Year to date | 13% | -4.9% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 8.2% | -25.3% |
Technicals
MGM has the stronger structure| Metric | MGM | RCL |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 26.6 | 13.7 |
| ADX (14) | 23.9 | 25.7 |
| Price vs 50-day | -8.3% | -10.8% |
| Price vs 200-day | 4.1% | -7.9% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 18.2% | 24.7% |
Risk
MGM is the more resilient| Metric | MGM | RCL |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.81 | 1.55 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.36 | -0.51 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.68 | -0.97 |
| Max drawdown | -19.6% | -31.5% |
| Current drawdown | -18.7% | -26.4% |
| Annualized volatility | 38% | 46.8% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.3% | -4.2% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, MGM or RCL?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, MGM is the stronger of the two as of Sep 6, 2026, scoring 46 against RCL's 39. The edge comes from value and risk resilience. RCL 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 MGM or RCL the better buy right now?
MGM 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 lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor MGM over RCL?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. RCL leads Quality by 24 points; MGM leads Value by 22 points; MGM leads Risk Resilience by 21 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, MGM or RCL?
Analyst price targets imply +10.8% upside for MGM and +30.3% for RCL, so the Street currently favors RCL. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors MGM. 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, MGM or RCL?
MGM is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. MGM on the peer-relative Value factor, by 22 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, MGM or RCL?
MGM 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, MGM or RCL?
MGM 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, MGM or RCL?
MGM is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. MGM on Risk Resilience, by 21 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 MGM more profitable than RCL?
RCL leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 44.2% vs 46.6%; operating margin 5.7% vs 27.3%; ttm roe 17% vs 43.8%.
Is MGM's lead over RCL getting stronger or weaker?
MGM lead: Reversed — RCL led by 2 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; MGM now leads by 7. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-24 and 2026-09-05. The lead has changed hands 2 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-17, when MGM moved ahead of RCL.
What would change the MGM vs RCL verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: RCL closes the Value gap — currently 22 points behind, the largest single contributor to MGM's edge; RCL's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it; MGM's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 1 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 MGM and RCL?
MGM: 2 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, 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 MGM is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On RCL it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare MGM 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.