NCLH vs WH Stock Comparison
WH currently leads NCLH in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 60 vs 52. The clearest difference is risk resilience, while NCLH has the stronger value profile.
What is the main difference between NCLH and WH?
WH leads the current stock comparison as Wyndham Hotels & Resorts, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from risk resilience and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings Ltd. vs Wyndham Hotels & Resorts, Inc.
WH leads
WH leads by 8 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Momentum, and the lead has widened from 4 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors NCLH on target upside.
Competitive: 4 of 6 evidence groups support WH, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings Ltd.
Wyndham Hotels & Resorts, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors WH over NCLH, 60 versus 52 as of Oct 22, 2026. WH's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and momentum, while NCLH holds the stronger value profile. WH also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors NCLH. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor WH today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. WH lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 4 to 8 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings Ltd. and Wyndham Hotels & Resorts, 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 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.
- Risk Resilience20 vs 50WH +30
- Value70 vs 44NCLH +26
- Momentum51 vs 74WH +23
- Quality51 vs 69WH +18
4 of 6 evidence groups favor WH. WH’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and momentum; NCLH keeps a meaningful value 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 +3
New signals
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
WH's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — NCLH and WH both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
WH (Wyndham Hotels & Resorts, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and momentum.
NCLH (Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings Ltd.): the counter-case, on value, valuation, analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 37.9% against 20.9%.
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
WHWH 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 26 points.
Momentum
WHWH on the Momentum factor, by 23 points.
Lower downside
WHWH on Risk Resilience, by 30 points.
Analyst upside
NCLHNCLH on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors WH, analyst targets favor NCLH. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | NCLH | WH | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +27.4% | +22.7% | NCLH has more room |
| Target dispersion | +156.1% | +26% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 14 | 8 | 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 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 | 52 vs 60 |
| Fundamentals | WHon balance | revenue growth 13.3% vs 14.7%; EPS growth 108.7% vs 69.1%; TTM ROE 32.3% vs 42.1%; gross margin 42.5% vs 64.2%; operating margin 15.1% vs 31% — WH takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | NCLH | Value 70 vs 44 |
| Technicals | WH | Price vs 50-day -0.9% vs 8.4%; vs 200-day -17.6% vs -0.9% |
| Risk Resilience | WH | Risk Resilience 20 vs 50 |
| Analyst expectations | NCLH | Target upside 27.4% vs 22.7% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of NCLH and WH and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
- The AIQ gap is moderate at 8 points.
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (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 WH.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20WH lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 4 to 8 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- WH +8
- 52 vs 60
- 7 sessions ago
- WH +8
- 52 vs 60
- 30 sessions ago
- WH +4
- 50 vs 54
- 90 sessions ago
- WH +5
- 45 vs 50
The lead changed hands 6 times in this window, most recently on Aug 6 when WH moved ahead of NCLH.
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%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
2 bullish / 3 bearish, conflicted
Only WH
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: Death Cross Active, MACD Bullish Crossover.
WH 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 and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +1.31%, AIQ +1 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.
- 1NCLH closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 30 points behind, the largest single contributor to WH's edge.
- 2NCLH's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3WH's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 3 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
WH leads on balance| Metric | NCLH | WH |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 13.3% | 14.7% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 108.7% | 69.1% |
| Gross margin | 42.5% | 64.2% |
| Operating margin | 15.1% | 31% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 32.3% | 42.1% |
| Debt to equity | 5.84 | 5.57 |
Performance
WH leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | NCLH | WH |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 2.2% | 5.4% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 10.1% | 14% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -19% | 2.2% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -19% | -12.1% |
| Year to date | -29.9% | 2.4% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -31.5% | -1.5% |
Technicals
WH has the stronger structure| Metric | NCLH | WH |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 60.8 | 74.5 |
| ADX (14) | 16.1 | 26 |
| Price vs 50-day | -0.9% | 8.4% |
| Price vs 200-day | -17.6% | -0.9% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 37.9% | 20.9% |
Risk
WH is the more resilient| Metric | NCLH | WH |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.96 | 0.52 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.5 | -0.01 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.78 | -0.02 |
| Max drawdown | -43.6% | -25.3% |
| Current drawdown | -37.5% | -14% |
| Annualized volatility | 54.5% | 30.6% |
| 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 WH?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, WH is the stronger of the two as of Oct 22, 2026, scoring 60 against NCLH's 52. The edge comes from risk resilience and momentum. NCLH is not without a case — it holds the better value 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 WH the better buy right now?
WH carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 22, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 4 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Competitive rating means the two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
Why does the AIQ Score favor WH over NCLH?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. WH leads Risk Resilience by 30 points; NCLH leads Value by 26 points; WH leads Momentum by 23 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, NCLH or WH?
Analyst price targets imply +27.4% upside for NCLH and +22.7% for WH, so the Street currently favors NCLH. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors WH. 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, NCLH or WH?
NCLH is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. NCLH on the peer-relative Value factor, by 26 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 WH?
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 WH?
WH on the Momentum factor, by 23 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 WH?
WH is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. WH on Risk Resilience, by 30 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 WH?
WH leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 42.5% vs 64.2%; operating margin 15.1% vs 31%; ttm roe 32.3% vs 42.1%.
Is WH's lead over NCLH getting stronger or weaker?
WH lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 4 to 8 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 6 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-06, when WH moved ahead of NCLH.
What would change the NCLH vs WH verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: NCLH closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 30 points behind, the largest single contributor to WH's edge; NCLH's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; WH's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 3 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 NCLH and WH?
NCLH: 1 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted. WH: 2 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 WH it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare NCLH and WH 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.