TME vs TTWO Stock Comparison
Compare TME and TTWO across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between TME and TTWO?
TME leads the current stock comparison as Tencent Music Entertainment Group, with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Tencent Music Entertainment Group vs Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc.
TME leads
TME leads by 13 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Quality.
Competitive: 5 of 6 evidence groups support TME, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Tencent Music Entertainment Group
Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors TME over TTWO, 50 versus 37 as of Sep 11, 2026. TME's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and quality. TME also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor TME today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. TME lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 13 points over 30 sessions. TME 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 Tencent Music Entertainment Group and Take-Two Interactive Software, 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 TME and TTWO 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.
- Value57 vs 37TME +20
- Quality59 vs 43TME +16
- Risk Resilience63 vs 54TME +9
- Momentum25 vs 19TME +6
5 of 6 evidence groups favor TME. TME’s edge is concentrated in value and quality.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-10, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-09.
Largest factor move: Risk Resilience +1
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum +2
No new signals fired.
TME's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — TME and TTWO both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
TME (Tencent Music Entertainment Group): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and quality.
TTWO (Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc.): 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
TMETME on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
TTWOTTWO on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
TMETME on the peer-relative Value factor, by 20 points.
Momentum
TMETME on the Momentum factor, by 6 points.
Lower downside
TMETME on Risk Resilience, by 9 points.
Analyst upside
TMETME 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 | TME | TTWO | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +69.5% | +34.6% | TME has more room |
| Target dispersion | +99.8% | +14.8% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 4 | 9 | 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 TME. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | TME | 50 vs 37 |
| Fundamentals | TMEon balance | revenue growth 13.8% vs -8.7%; EPS growth 17.6% vs 43.8%; TTM ROE 11.2% vs -9.1%; gross margin 47.3% vs 56%; operating margin 33.1% vs -2.4% — TME takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | TME | Value 57 vs 37 |
| Technicals | TTWO | Price vs 50-day -10% vs -9.4%; vs 200-day -34.1% vs -4.6% |
| Risk Resilience | TME | Risk Resilience 63 vs 54 |
| Analyst expectations | TME | Target upside 69.5% vs 34.6% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of TME and TTWO 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 wide at 13 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 5 of 6 covered evidence groups point the same way. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Signal direction runs against the verdict: the leader is net-bearish while the laggard is net-bullish. (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 TME.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10TME lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 13 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- TME +13
- 50 vs 37
- 7 sessions ago
- TME +14
- 50 vs 36
- 30 sessions ago
- TME +14
- 55 vs 41
- 90 sessions ago
- Level
- 52 vs 52
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on Jun 22 when TTWO moved ahead of TME.
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 / 5 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (35.25%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
2 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (4.51%)
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (3.75%)
TME 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 +1.01%, AIQ 0 points).
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -0.69%, 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.
- 1TTWO closes the Value gap — currently 20 points behind, the largest single contributor to TME's edge.
- 2TTWO's ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3TME's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 5 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
TME leads on balance| Metric | TME | TTWO |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 13.8% | -8.7% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 17.6% | 43.8% |
| Gross margin | 47.3% | 56% |
| Operating margin | 33.1% | -2.4% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 11.2% | -9.1% |
| Debt to equity | 0.22 | 0.82 |
Performance
TTWO leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | TME | TTWO |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -5.8% | 0.4% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -6.6% | -10.7% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -14.2% | 3.1% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -40.8% | 2.8% |
| Year to date | -53.4% | -15.3% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -67.8% | -12.3% |
Technicals
TTWO has the stronger structure| Metric | TME | TTWO |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 20.5 | 22.2 |
| ADX (14) | 16.4 | 25.3 |
| Price vs 50-day | -10% | -9.4% |
| Price vs 200-day | -34.1% | -4.6% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 27.3% | 31.3% |
Risk
TME is the more resilient| Metric | TME | TTWO |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.91 | 0.67 |
| Sharpe ratio | -2.34 | -0.37 |
| Sortino ratio | -2.49 | -0.51 |
| Max drawdown | -70.1% | -27.7% |
| Current drawdown | -70% | -17.3% |
| Annualized volatility | 46.6% | 32.5% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -4.4% | -3% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, TME or TTWO?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, TME is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 50 against TTWO's 37. The edge comes from value and quality. 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 TME or TTWO the better buy right now?
TME carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 5 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 TME over TTWO?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. TME leads Value by 20 points; TME leads Quality by 16 points; TME leads Risk Resilience by 9 points. TME leads on all four AIQ factor dimensions. Value is itself one of those four, so the sweep is not explained by TTWO 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, TME or TTWO?
Analyst price targets imply +69.5% upside for TME and +34.6% for TTWO, so the Street currently favors TME. 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, TME or TTWO?
TME is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. TME on the peer-relative Value factor, by 20 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, TME or TTWO?
TTWO 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, TME or TTWO?
TME on the Momentum factor, by 6 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, TME or TTWO?
TME is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. TME on Risk Resilience, by 9 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 TME more profitable than TTWO?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 47.3% vs 56%; operating margin 33.1% vs -2.4%; ttm roe 11.2% vs -9.1%. TME leads on two measures and TTWO on one measure, 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 TME's lead over TTWO getting stronger or weaker?
TME lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 13 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 2 times in that window, most recently on 2026-06-22, when TTWO moved ahead of TME.
What would change the TME vs TTWO verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: TTWO closes the Value gap — currently 20 points behind, the largest single contributor to TME's edge; TTWO's ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; TME's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 5 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 TME and TTWO?
TME: 1 bullish / 5 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. TTWO: 2 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 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 TME is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On TTWO it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare TME and TTWO 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.