ASML vs LRCX Stock Comparison
ASML currently leads LRCX in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 51 vs 43. The clearest difference is risk resilience.
What is the main difference between ASML and LRCX?
ASML leads the current stock comparison as ASML Holding N.V., with the clearest separation coming from risk resilience and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
ASML Holding N.V. vs Lam Research Corporation
ASML leads
ASML leads by 8 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Momentum, and the lead has widened from 5 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors LRCX on target upside.
Stable: 5 of 6 evidence groups support ASML, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
ASML Holding N.V.
Lam Research Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors ASML over LRCX, 51 versus 43 as of Oct 21, 2026. ASML's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and momentum. ASML also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors LRCX. 5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor ASML today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. ASML lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 5 to 8 points over 30 sessions. ASML 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 ASML Holding N.V. and Lam Research Corporation 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 ASML and LRCX 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 Resilience61 vs 42ASML +19
- Momentum15 vs 8ASML +7
- Quality93 vs 88ASML +5
- Value33 vs 28ASML +5
5 of 6 evidence groups favor ASML. ASML’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and momentum.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-20, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-19.
Largest factor move: Risk Resilience +1, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
ASML's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — ASML and LRCX both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
ASML (ASML Holding N.V.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and momentum.
LRCX (Lam Research Corporation): the counter-case, on analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 42.8% against 28.5%.
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
ASMLASML on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
ASMLASML on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
ASMLASML on the peer-relative Value factor, by 5 points.
Momentum
ASMLASML on the Momentum factor, by 7 points.
Lower downside
ASMLASML on Risk Resilience, by 19 points.
Analyst upside
LRCXLRCX on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors ASML, analyst targets favor LRCX. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | ASML | LRCX | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +34.4% | +53% | LRCX has more room |
| Target dispersion | +27.6% | +68.9% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 4 | 17 | 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.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | ASML | LRCX |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 20.90% | 14.87% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $2.854 | $0.490 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $7.372 | $0.980 |
| Years increased | 4 | 5 |
| No cut in window | No (1) | Yes |
| Cohort rank | not ranked | #35 |
ASML grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 20.90% a year against LRCX's 14.87%. LRCX never reduced its regular dividend in the window; ASML did in 1 year.
Yield and payout ratio shown elsewhere on this page are current values, not part of the study window.
Split-adjusted regular dividends per share, 2020–2025, excluding special dividends. Research as of Sep 19, 2026.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor ASML. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | ASML | 51 vs 43 |
| Fundamentals | ASMLon balance | revenue growth 25% vs 15.1%; EPS growth 70.6% vs 24.7%; TTM ROE 63.9% vs 67%; gross margin 54.3% vs 50.5%; operating margin 38.6% vs 35.3% — ASML takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | ASML | Value 33 vs 28 |
| Technicals | ASML | Price vs 50-day -3.4% vs -15.2%; vs 200-day 4.1% vs -6.1% |
| Risk Resilience | ASML | Risk Resilience 61 vs 42 |
| Analyst expectations | LRCX | Target upside 34.4% vs 53% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of ASML and LRCX and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion rests on a wide gap and broad agreement. It is unlikely to turn on a single session.
- The AIQ gap is moderate at 8 points.
- 5 of 6 covered evidence groups point the same way. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 ASML.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20ASML lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 5 to 8 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- ASML +8
- 51 vs 43
- 7 sessions ago
- ASML +7
- 50 vs 43
- 30 sessions ago
- ASML +5
- 66 vs 61
- 90 sessions ago
- ASML +2
- 66 vs 64
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on Jul 6 when ASML moved ahead of LRCX.
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.
2 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted
No signal that the other name lacks.
2 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only LRCX
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (5.44%)
Both carry 4 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, Keltner Channel Breakdown, RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce, MACD Bearish Crossover.
ASML 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 +2.81%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -1%, 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.
- 1LRCX closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 19 points behind, the largest single contributor to ASML's edge.
- 2LRCX's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3ASML's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 2 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
ASML leads on balance| Metric | ASML | LRCX |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 25% | 15.1% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 70.6% | 24.7% |
| Gross margin | 54.3% | 50.5% |
| Operating margin | 38.6% | 35.3% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 63.9% | 67% |
| Debt to equity | 0.09 | 0.33 |
Performance
ASML leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | ASML | LRCX |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -5.1% | -12.5% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -6.7% | -15.3% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -9.5% | -17.5% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 11.8% | 3.2% |
| Year to date | 52.4% | 53.9% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 61.8% | 86.7% |
Technicals
ASML has the stronger structure| Metric | ASML | LRCX |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 24.2 | 27 |
| ADX (14) | 18.5 | 20.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | -3.4% | -15.2% |
| Price vs 200-day | 4.1% | -6.1% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 28.5% | 42.8% |
Risk
ASML is the more resilient| Metric | ASML | LRCX |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.2 | 3.19 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.15 | 1.23 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.95 | 2.05 |
| Max drawdown | -22.1% | -41.8% |
| Current drawdown | -18% | -39.2% |
| Annualized volatility | 46.1% | 64.6% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -4.4% | -6.1% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, ASML or LRCX?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, ASML is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 51 against LRCX's 43. The edge comes from risk resilience and momentum. 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 ASML or LRCX the better buy right now?
ASML carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 2026, and the comparison is rated Stable — 5 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Stable rating means the gap is wide and the evidence is broad, so the conclusion is unlikely to turn on a single session.
Why does the AIQ Score favor ASML over LRCX?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. ASML leads Risk Resilience by 19 points; ASML leads Momentum by 7 points; ASML leads Quality by 5 points. ASML leads on all four AIQ factor dimensions. Value is itself one of those four, so the sweep is not explained by LRCX 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, ASML or LRCX?
Analyst price targets imply +34.4% upside for ASML and +53% for LRCX, so the Street currently favors LRCX. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors ASML. 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, ASML or LRCX?
ASML is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. ASML on the peer-relative Value factor, by 5 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, ASML or LRCX?
ASML 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, ASML or LRCX?
ASML on the Momentum factor, by 7 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, ASML or LRCX?
ASML is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. ASML on Risk Resilience, by 19 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 ASML more profitable than LRCX?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 54.3% vs 50.5%; operating margin 38.6% vs 35.3%; ttm roe 63.9% vs 67%. ASML leads on two measures and LRCX 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 ASML's lead over LRCX getting stronger or weaker?
ASML lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 5 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 2 times in that window, most recently on 2026-07-06, when ASML moved ahead of LRCX.
What would change the ASML vs LRCX verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: LRCX closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 19 points behind, the largest single contributor to ASML's edge; LRCX's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it; ASML's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 2 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 ASML and LRCX?
ASML: 2 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted. LRCX: 2 bullish / 2 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 ASML is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On LRCX it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare ASML and LRCX 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.