MTCH vs PINS Stock Comparison
Compare MTCH and PINS across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between MTCH and PINS?
MTCH leads the current stock comparison as Match Group, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Match Group, Inc. vs Pinterest, Inc.
MTCH leads
MTCH leads by 9 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum, and the lead has widened from 1 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors PINS on target upside.
Fragile: 2 of 6 evidence groups support MTCH, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Match Group, Inc.
Pinterest, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors MTCH over PINS, 57 versus 48 as of Sep 11, 2026. MTCH's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum, while PINS holds the stronger risk resilience profile. MTCH also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors PINS. 2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor MTCH today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. MTCH lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 1 to 9 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Match Group, Inc. and Pinterest, 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 MTCH and PINS 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.
- Momentum69 vs 23MTCH +46
- Risk Resilience47 vs 55PINS +8
- Value50 vs 52Even
- Quality60 vs 60Even
2 of 6 evidence groups favor MTCH. MTCH’s edge is concentrated in momentum; PINS keeps a meaningful risk resilience 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.
MTCH's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — MTCH and PINS both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
MTCH (Match Group, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum.
PINS (Pinterest, Inc.): the counter-case, on risk resilience, fundamentals, analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 47.6% against 28.4%.
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
MTCHMTCH on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
PINSPINS on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
MTCHMTCH on the Momentum factor, by 46 points.
Lower downside
PINSPINS on Risk Resilience, by 8 points.
Analyst upside
PINSPINS on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors MTCH, analyst targets favor PINS. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | MTCH | PINS | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -2.8% | +46.5% | PINS has more room |
| Target dispersion | +34% | +39.4% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 7 | 15 | 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
2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor MTCH. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | MTCH | 57 vs 48 |
| Fundamentals | PINSon balance | revenue growth -1.3% vs 17.1%; EPS growth 5.8% vs 33.3%; TTM ROE -3% vs 6.5%; gross margin 74.8% vs 79.5%; operating margin 28.2% vs 6% — PINS takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | Even | Value 50 vs 52 |
| Technicals | MTCH | Price vs 50-day 7.5% vs -16.3%; vs 200-day 20.1% vs -14% |
| Risk Resilience | PINS | Risk Resilience 47 vs 55 |
| Analyst expectations | PINS | Target upside -2.8% vs 46.5% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of MTCH and PINS 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 9 points.
- Only 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (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 MTCH.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10MTCH lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 1 to 9 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- MTCH +9
- 57 vs 48
- 7 sessions ago
- MTCH +11
- 60 vs 49
- 30 sessions ago
- MTCH +1
- 56 vs 55
- 90 sessions ago
- MTCH +4
- 60 vs 56
The lead changed hands 9 times in this window, most recently on Aug 18 when MTCH moved ahead of PINS.
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.
3 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (13.25%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
2 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (4.28%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
MTCH 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.
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +1.36%, AIQ -1 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +1.44%, 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.
- 1PINS closes the Momentum gap — currently 46 points behind, the largest single contributor to MTCH's edge.
- 2PINS's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3MTCH's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 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
PINS leads on balance| Metric | MTCH | PINS |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -1.3% | 17.1% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 5.8% | 33.3% |
| Gross margin | 74.8% | 79.5% |
| Operating margin | 28.2% | 6% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -3% | 6.5% |
| Debt to equity | -14.98 | 0.41 |
Performance
MTCH leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | MTCH | PINS |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -1.5% | -11.5% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 14.3% | -18% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 21.7% | -13.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 36.7% | -3.1% |
| Year to date | 29.5% | -27.5% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 7.9% | -50.5% |
Technicals
MTCH has the stronger structure| Metric | MTCH | PINS |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 59.4 | 17.9 |
| ADX (14) | 19.1 | 24.7 |
| Price vs 50-day | 7.5% | -16.3% |
| Price vs 200-day | 20.1% | -14% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 28.4% | 47.6% |
Risk
PINS is the more resilient| Metric | MTCH | PINS |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.9 | 0.9 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.32 | -1.07 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.47 | -1.2 |
| Max drawdown | -25.1% | -57.8% |
| Current drawdown | -1.5% | -48.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 32.1% | 52.5% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.1% | -5.5% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, MTCH or PINS?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, MTCH is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 57 against PINS's 48. The edge comes from momentum. PINS is not without a case — it holds the better risk resilience 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 MTCH or PINS the better buy right now?
MTCH carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: only 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor MTCH over PINS?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. MTCH leads Momentum by 46 points; PINS leads Risk Resilience by 8 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, MTCH or PINS?
Analyst price targets imply -2.8% upside for MTCH and +46.5% for PINS, so the Street currently favors PINS. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors MTCH. 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, MTCH or PINS?
Neither name separates on the peer-relative Value factor. The two are level on Value. 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, MTCH or PINS?
PINS 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, MTCH or PINS?
MTCH on the Momentum factor, by 46 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, MTCH or PINS?
PINS is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. PINS 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 MTCH more profitable than PINS?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 74.8% vs 79.5%; operating margin 28.2% vs 6%; ttm roe -3% vs 6.5%. MTCH leads on one measure and PINS on two measures, and there is no single profitability composite that resolves the split — which of the two reads as "more profitable" depends on whether you weight pricing power or operating leverage.
Is MTCH's lead over PINS getting stronger or weaker?
MTCH lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 1 to 9 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 9 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-18, when MTCH moved ahead of PINS.
What would change the MTCH vs PINS verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: PINS closes the Momentum gap — currently 46 points behind, the largest single contributor to MTCH's edge; PINS's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it; MTCH's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; 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 MTCH and PINS?
MTCH: 3 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. PINS: 2 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 MTCH is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On PINS it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare MTCH and PINS 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.