NCLH vs TKO Stock Comparison
NCLH currently leads TKO in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 52 vs 40. The clearest difference is value, while TKO has the stronger risk resilience profile.
What is the main difference between NCLH and TKO?
NCLH leads the current stock comparison as Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings Ltd., with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings Ltd. vs TKO Group Holdings, Inc.
NCLH leads
NCLH leads by 12 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Quality, but the lead has narrowed from 16 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support NCLH, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings Ltd.
TKO Group Holdings, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors NCLH over TKO, 52 versus 40 as of Oct 22, 2026. NCLH's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and quality, while TKO holds the stronger risk resilience profile. NCLH also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor NCLH today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. NCLH lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 16 to 12 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings Ltd. and TKO Group Holdings, Inc. across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Performance over time
Total return with distributions reinvested, from daily closes.
Total return comparison
Growth of $10,000, distributions reinvested
Split-adjusted closes; each distribution is reinvested at the close on its ex-dividend date. Taxes and trading costs are not modeled.
Compare NCLH and TKO 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.
- Value70 vs 30NCLH +40
- Risk Resilience20 vs 55TKO +35
- Quality51 vs 39NCLH +12
- Momentum51 vs 43NCLH +8
3 of 6 evidence groups favor NCLH. NCLH’s edge is concentrated in value and quality; TKO keeps a meaningful risk resilience edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-20, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-19.
Largest factor move: Momentum +5
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +6
New signals
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
NCLH's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — NCLH and TKO both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
NCLH (Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings Ltd.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and quality.
TKO (TKO Group Holdings, Inc.): the counter-case, on risk resilience, 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
NCLHNCLH on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
NCLHNCLH on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
NCLHNCLH on the peer-relative Value factor, by 40 points.
Momentum
NCLHNCLH on the Momentum factor, by 8 points.
Lower downside
TKOTKO on Risk Resilience, by 35 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 | NCLH | TKO | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +27.4% | +28.1% | Level |
| Target dispersion | +156.1% | +13.2% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 14 | 6 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor NCLH. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | NCLH | 52 vs 40 |
| Fundamentals | NCLHon balance | revenue growth 13.3% vs -3.1%; EPS growth 108.7% vs 17.2%; TTM ROE 32.3% vs 6.4%; gross margin 42.5% vs 54.1%; operating margin 15.1% vs 20% — NCLH takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | NCLH | Value 70 vs 30 |
| Technicals | TKO | Price vs 50-day -0.9% vs -4.4%; vs 200-day -17.6% vs -7.6% |
| Risk Resilience | TKO | Risk Resilience 20 vs 55 |
| Analyst expectations | Even | Target upside 27.4% vs 28.1% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of NCLH and TKO 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 wide at 12 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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 NCLH.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20NCLH lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 16 to 12 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- NCLH +12
- 52 vs 40
- 7 sessions ago
- NCLH +15
- 52 vs 37
- 30 sessions ago
- NCLH +16
- 50 vs 34
- 90 sessions ago
- TKO +1
- 45 vs 46
The lead changed hands 4 times in this window, most recently on Aug 20 when NCLH moved ahead of TKO.
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 / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only NCLH
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (4.09%)
1 bullish / 3 bearish, conflicted
Only TKO
- 52-Week Low Proximity — bearish, risk, long horizon (2.8%)
Both carry 3 more signals that do not separate them: Death Cross Active, Downtrend Structure Active, MACD Bullish Crossover.
NCLH 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 down while the AIQ Score moved up 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -0.38%, AIQ +1 points).
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 2 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -0.95%, AIQ +2 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.
- 1TKO closes the Value gap — currently 40 points behind, the largest single contributor to NCLH's edge.
- 2TKO's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3NCLH's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 4 points over 30 sessions, and a further 12-point move would eliminate NCLH's advantage entirely.
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
NCLH leads on balance| Metric | NCLH | TKO |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 13.3% | -3.1% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 108.7% | 17.2% |
| Gross margin | 42.5% | 54.1% |
| Operating margin | 15.1% | 20% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 32.3% | 6.4% |
| Debt to equity | 5.84 | 1.46 |
Performance
TKO leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | NCLH | TKO |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 2.2% | 3.3% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 10.1% | -4.9% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -19% | -1.1% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -19% | -1.9% |
| Year to date | -29.9% | -14% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -31.5% | -4.4% |
Technicals
TKO has the stronger structure| Metric | NCLH | TKO |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 60.8 | 49.9 |
| ADX (14) | 16.1 | 24.1 |
| Price vs 50-day | -0.9% | -4.4% |
| Price vs 200-day | -17.6% | -7.6% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 37.9% | 25% |
Risk
TKO is the more resilient| Metric | NCLH | TKO |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.96 | 0.44 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.5 | -0.13 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.78 | -0.21 |
| Max drawdown | -43.6% | -23.4% |
| Current drawdown | -37.5% | -20.1% |
| Annualized volatility | 54.5% | 31.7% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -4.7% | -3.1% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, NCLH or TKO?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, NCLH is the stronger of the two as of Oct 22, 2026, scoring 52 against TKO's 40. The edge comes from value and quality. TKO 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 NCLH or TKO the better buy right now?
NCLH carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 22, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor NCLH over TKO?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. NCLH leads Value by 40 points; TKO leads Risk Resilience by 35 points; NCLH leads Quality by 12 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, NCLH or TKO?
Analyst price targets imply +27.4% upside for NCLH and +28.1% for TKO. 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, NCLH or TKO?
NCLH is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. NCLH on the peer-relative Value factor, by 40 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, NCLH or TKO?
NCLH 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, NCLH or TKO?
NCLH on the Momentum factor, by 8 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, NCLH or TKO?
TKO is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. TKO on Risk Resilience, by 35 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 NCLH more profitable than TKO?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 42.5% vs 54.1%; operating margin 15.1% vs 20%; ttm roe 32.3% vs 6.4%. NCLH leads on one measure and TKO 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 NCLH's lead over TKO getting stronger or weaker?
NCLH lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 16 to 12 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has changed hands 4 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-20, when NCLH moved ahead of TKO.
What would change the NCLH vs TKO verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: TKO closes the Value gap — currently 40 points behind, the largest single contributor to NCLH's edge; TKO's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; NCLH's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 4 points over 30 sessions, and a further 12-point move would eliminate NCLH's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about NCLH and TKO?
NCLH: 1 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted. TKO: 1 bullish / 3 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 NCLH is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On TKO it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare NCLH and TKO 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.