MSGS vs WH Stock Comparison
Compare MSGS and WH across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between MSGS and WH?
WH leads the current stock comparison as Wyndham Hotels & Resorts, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Madison Square Garden Sports Corp. vs Wyndham Hotels & Resorts, Inc.
WH leads
WH leads by 14 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Value, and the lead has widened from 2 points over 30 sessions.
Stable: 5 of 6 evidence groups support WH, and its lead is widening.
Madison Square Garden Sports Corp.
Wyndham Hotels & Resorts, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors WH over MSGS, 50 versus 36 as of Sep 7, 2026. WH's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and value. WH also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor WH today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability. WH lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 2 to 14 points over 30 sessions. WH 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 Madison Square Garden Sports Corp. and Wyndham Hotels & Resorts, 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 MSGS and WH 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%42 vs 69WH +27
- Value30%34 vs 44WH +10
- Momentum25%29 vs 37WH +8
- Risk Resilience15%39 vs 45WH +6
5 of 6 evidence groups favor WH. WH’s edge is concentrated in quality and value.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-06, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-05.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
WH's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — MSGS and WH both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
WH (Wyndham Hotels & Resorts, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and value.
MSGS (Madison Square Garden Sports Corp.): the counter-case, on 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
WHWH on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
MSGSMSGS on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
WHWH on the peer-relative Value factor, by 10 points.
Momentum
WHWH on the Momentum factor, by 8 points.
Lower downside
WHWH on Risk Resilience, by 6 points.
Analyst upside
WHWH 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 | MSGS | WH | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +15.8% | +34.4% | WH has more room |
| Target dispersion | +43.3% | +25.9% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 4 | 6 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor WH. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | WH | 36 vs 50 |
| Fundamentals | WHon balance | revenue growth -35.5% vs 14.7%; EPS growth 242.2% vs 69.1%; TTM ROE -2.7% vs 42.1%; gross margin 27.7% vs 64.2%; operating margin 2.5% vs 31% — WH takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | WH | Value 34 vs 44 |
| Technicals | MSGS | Price vs 50-day -1% vs -6%; vs 200-day 19% vs -8.7% |
| Risk Resilience | WH | Risk Resilience 39 vs 45 |
| Analyst expectations | WH | Target upside 15.8% vs 34.4% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of MSGS and WH 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 14 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 5 of 6 covered evidence groups point the same way. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
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 WH.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 27 – Sep 6WH lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 2 to 14 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- WH +14
- 36 vs 50
- 7 sessions ago
- WH +13
- 36 vs 49
- 30 sessions ago
- WH +2
- 48 vs 50
- 90 sessions ago
- WH +12
- 46 vs 58
The lead changed hands 8 times in this window, most recently on Jul 31 when WH moved ahead of MSGS.
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.
1 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (20.26%)
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
0 bullish / 4 bearish / 1 neutral
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (2.95%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- 52-Week Low Proximity — bearish, risk, long horizon (2.3%)
MSGS 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 +1.06%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +1.14%, 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.
- 1MSGS closes the Quality gap — currently 27 points behind, the largest single contributor to WH's edge.
- 2MSGS's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 3WH starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals.
- 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
WH leads on balance| Metric | MSGS | WH |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -35.5% | 14.7% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 242.2% | 69.1% |
| Gross margin | 27.7% | 64.2% |
| Operating margin | 2.5% | 31% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -2.7% | 42.1% |
| Debt to equity | -4.34 | 5.57 |
Performance
MSGS leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | MSGS | WH |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 0.5% | -5.6% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 0.3% | -2.7% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 1.4% | -12.4% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 24.8% | -6.5% |
| Year to date | 51.2% | -5% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 99.7% | -16.6% |
Technicals
MSGS has the stronger structure| Metric | MSGS | WH |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 34.5 | 46 |
| ADX (14) | 17.6 | 18.2 |
| Price vs 50-day | -1% | -6% |
| Price vs 200-day | 19% | -8.7% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 27.5% | 29.1% |
Risk
WH is the more resilient| Metric | MSGS | WH |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.56 | 0.55 |
| Sharpe ratio | 2.3 | -0.57 |
| Sortino ratio | 4.38 | -0.95 |
| Max drawdown | -10.1% | -21.6% |
| Current drawdown | -5.5% | -20.1% |
| Annualized volatility | 30.4% | 30.9% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.1% | -3.1% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, MSGS or WH?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, WH is the stronger of the two as of Sep 7, 2026, scoring 50 against MSGS's 36. The edge comes from quality and value. 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 MSGS or WH the better buy right now?
WH carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 7, 2026, and the comparison is rated Stable — 5 of 6 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 WH over MSGS?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. WH leads Quality by 27 points; WH leads Value by 10 points; WH leads Momentum by 8 points. WH leads on all four AIQ factor dimensions. Value is itself one of those four, so the sweep is not explained by MSGS 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, MSGS or WH?
Analyst price targets imply +15.8% upside for MSGS and +34.4% for WH, so the Street currently favors WH. 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, MSGS or WH?
WH is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. WH on the peer-relative Value factor, by 10 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, MSGS or WH?
MSGS 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, MSGS or WH?
WH on the Momentum factor, by 8 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, MSGS or WH?
WH is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. WH on Risk Resilience, by 6 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 MSGS more profitable than WH?
WH leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 27.7% vs 64.2%; operating margin 2.5% vs 31%; ttm roe -2.7% vs 42.1%.
Is WH's lead over MSGS getting stronger or weaker?
WH lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 2 to 14 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-27 and 2026-09-06. The lead has changed hands 8 times in that window, most recently on 2026-07-31, when WH moved ahead of MSGS.
What would change the MSGS vs WH verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: MSGS closes the Quality gap — currently 27 points behind, the largest single contributor to WH's edge; MSGS's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it; WH starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals; 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 MSGS and WH?
MSGS: 1 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. WH: 0 bullish / 4 bearish / 1 neutral. 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 MSGS is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On WH it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare MSGS and WH 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.