TMUS vs TTWO Stock Comparison
Compare TMUS and TTWO across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between TMUS and TTWO?
TMUS leads the current stock comparison as T-Mobile US, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
T-Mobile US, Inc. vs Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc.
TMUS leads
TMUS leads by 5 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Value, but the lead has narrowed from 8 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors TTWO on target upside.
Fragile: 4 of 6 evidence groups support TMUS, and its lead is narrowing.
T-Mobile US, Inc.
Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors TMUS over TTWO, 42 versus 37 as of Sep 11, 2026. TMUS's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and value, while TTWO holds the stronger risk resilience profile. TMUS also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors TTWO. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor TMUS today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 5 points. TMUS lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 8 to 5 points over 30 sessions.
Compare T-Mobile US, Inc. 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 TMUS 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.
- Momentum35 vs 19TMUS +16
- Risk Resilience42 vs 54TTWO +12
- Value46 vs 37TMUS +9
- Quality43 vs 43Even
4 of 6 evidence groups favor TMUS. TMUS’s edge is concentrated in momentum and value; TTWO 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.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum +2
No new signals fired.
TMUS's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — TMUS and TTWO both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
TMUS (T-Mobile US, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and value.
TTWO (Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc.): the counter-case, on risk resilience, analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 31.3% against 26.2%.
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
TMUSTMUS on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
TTWOTTWO on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
TMUSTMUS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 9 points.
Momentum
TMUSTMUS on the Momentum factor, by 16 points.
Lower downside
TTWOTTWO on Risk Resilience, by 12 points.
Analyst upside
TTWOTTWO on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors TMUS, analyst targets favor TTWO. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | TMUS | TTWO | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +29.6% | +34.6% | TTWO has more room |
| Target dispersion | +49.1% | +14.8% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 10 | 9 | 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 TMUS. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | TMUS | 42 vs 37 |
| Fundamentals | TMUSon balance | revenue growth -1.4% vs -8.7%; EPS growth 31.1% vs 43.8%; TTM ROE 18.2% vs -9.1%; gross margin 54.5% vs 56%; operating margin 20.3% vs -2.4% — TMUS takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | TMUS | Value 46 vs 37 |
| Technicals | TMUS | Price vs 50-day 0.4% vs -9.4%; vs 200-day -8.7% vs -4.6% |
| Risk Resilience | TTWO | Risk Resilience 42 vs 54 |
| Analyst expectations | TTWO | Target upside 29.6% vs 34.6% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of TMUS and TTWO 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 narrow at 5 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (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)
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 TMUS.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10TMUS lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 8 to 5 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- TMUS +5
- 42 vs 37
- 7 sessions ago
- TMUS +12
- 48 vs 36
- 30 sessions ago
- TMUS +8
- 49 vs 41
- 90 sessions ago
- TTWO +10
- 42 vs 52
The lead changed hands 4 times in this window, most recently on Jul 27 when TTWO moved ahead of TMUS.
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.
0 bullish / 3 bearish
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (6.85%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, 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%)
TTWO 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 +2.92%, 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 Momentum gap — currently 16 points behind, the largest single contributor to TMUS's edge.
- 2TTWO's ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3TMUS starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 3 points over 30 sessions, and a further 5-point move would eliminate TMUS'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
TMUS leads on balance| Metric | TMUS | TTWO |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -1.4% | -8.7% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 31.1% | 43.8% |
| Gross margin | 54.5% | 56% |
| Operating margin | 20.3% | -2.4% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 18.2% | -9.1% |
| Debt to equity | 2.06 | 0.82 |
Performance
TTWO leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | TMUS | TTWO |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -5.4% | 0.4% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 0% | -10.7% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -4.5% | 3.1% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -17% | 2.8% |
| Year to date | -12.7% | -15.3% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -27.1% | -12.3% |
Technicals
TMUS has the stronger structure| Metric | TMUS | TTWO |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 43.3 | 22.2 |
| ADX (14) | 10.2 | 25.3 |
| Price vs 50-day | 0.4% | -9.4% |
| Price vs 200-day | -8.7% | -4.6% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 26.2% | 31.3% |
Risk
TTWO is the more resilient| Metric | TMUS | TTWO |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | -0.32 | 0.67 |
| Sharpe ratio | -1.06 | -0.37 |
| Sortino ratio | -1.46 | -0.51 |
| Max drawdown | -30.9% | -27.7% |
| Current drawdown | -27% | -17.3% |
| Annualized volatility | 29.3% | 32.5% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3% | -3% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, TMUS or TTWO?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, TMUS is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 42 against TTWO's 37. The edge comes from momentum and value. TTWO 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 TMUS or TTWO the better buy right now?
TMUS carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 4 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 5 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor TMUS over TTWO?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. TMUS leads Momentum by 16 points; TTWO leads Risk Resilience by 12 points; TMUS leads Value by 9 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, TMUS or TTWO?
Analyst price targets imply +29.6% upside for TMUS and +34.6% for TTWO, so the Street currently favors TTWO. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors TMUS. 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, TMUS or TTWO?
TMUS is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. TMUS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 9 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, TMUS 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, TMUS or TTWO?
TMUS on the Momentum factor, by 16 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, TMUS or TTWO?
TTWO is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. TTWO on Risk Resilience, by 12 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 TMUS more profitable than TTWO?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 54.5% vs 56%; operating margin 20.3% vs -2.4%; ttm roe 18.2% vs -9.1%. TMUS 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 TMUS's lead over TTWO getting stronger or weaker?
TMUS lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 8 to 5 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 4 times in that window, most recently on 2026-07-27, when TTWO moved ahead of TMUS.
What would change the TMUS vs TTWO verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: TTWO closes the Momentum gap — currently 16 points behind, the largest single contributor to TMUS's edge; TTWO's ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; TMUS starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 3 points over 30 sessions, and a further 5-point move would eliminate TMUS's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about TMUS and TTWO?
TMUS: 0 bullish / 3 bearish. 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 TMUS is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On TTWO it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare TMUS 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.