EFX vs LNTH Stock Comparison
LNTH currently leads EFX in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 68 vs 57. The clearest difference is risk resilience, while EFX has the stronger momentum profile.
What is the main difference between EFX and LNTH?
LNTH leads the current stock comparison as Lantheus Holdings, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from risk resilience and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Equifax Inc. vs Lantheus Holdings, Inc.
LNTH leads
LNTH leads by 11 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Quality, but the lead has narrowed from 16 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors EFX on target upside.
Competitive: 4 of 6 evidence groups support LNTH, its lead is narrowing, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Equifax Inc.
Lantheus Holdings, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors LNTH over EFX, 68 versus 57 as of Oct 21, 2026. LNTH's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and quality, while EFX holds the stronger momentum profile. LNTH also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors EFX. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor LNTH today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader's advantage has been narrowing. LNTH lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 16 to 11 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Equifax Inc. and Lantheus 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 EFX and LNTH 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 Resilience36 vs 72LNTH +36
- Quality46 vs 73LNTH +27
- Momentum86 vs 77EFX +9
- Value53 vs 53Even
4 of 6 evidence groups favor LNTH. LNTH’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and quality; EFX keeps a meaningful momentum 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 +17
New signals
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum +20
New signals
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
LNTH's lead widened by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — EFX and LNTH both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
LNTH (Lantheus Holdings, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and quality.
EFX (Equifax Inc.): the counter-case, on momentum, analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 56.2% against 3.2%.
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
LNTHLNTH on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
EFXEFX on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
EFXEFX on the Momentum factor, by 9 points.
Lower downside
LNTHLNTH on Risk Resilience, by 36 points.
Analyst upside
EFXEFX on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors LNTH, analyst targets favor EFX. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | EFX | LNTH | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +14.1% | +8.8% | EFX has more room |
| Target dispersion | +48.4% | +28.4% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 13 | 6 | 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 LNTH. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | LNTH | 57 vs 68 |
| Fundamentals | LNTHon balance | revenue growth 3.1% vs 2.9%; EPS growth 8.4% vs -37.2%; TTM ROE 15% vs 23.3%; gross margin 44.4% vs 60.1%; operating margin 17.9% vs 19.4% — LNTH takes 3 of 4 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | Even | Value 53 vs 53 |
| Technicals | LNTH | Price vs 50-day 5.1% vs -0.1%; vs 200-day -1.1% vs 11.4% |
| Risk Resilience | LNTH | Risk Resilience 36 vs 72 |
| Analyst expectations | EFX | Target upside 14.1% vs 8.8% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of EFX and LNTH 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 11 points.
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's signal state is cleanly positive. (supports the conclusion holding)
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 LNTH.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20LNTH lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 16 to 11 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- LNTH +11
- 57 vs 68
- 7 sessions ago
- LNTH +10
- 52 vs 62
- 30 sessions ago
- LNTH +16
- 40 vs 56
- 90 sessions ago
- LNTH +9
- 47 vs 56
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on Aug 24 when LNTH moved ahead of EFX.
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 / 3 bearish, conflicted
Only EFX
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (6.87%)
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
3 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
Only LNTH
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (11.38%)
- ATR Contraction - Coiling — neutral, volatility, short horizon (0.47%)
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
Both carry 1 more signal that do not separate them: MACD Bullish Crossover.
EFX 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.
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 4 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -0.55%, AIQ +4 points).
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 5 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -0.15%, AIQ +5 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.
- 1EFX closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 36 points behind, the largest single contributor to LNTH's edge.
- 2EFX's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3LNTH's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 5 points over 30 sessions, and a further 11-point move would eliminate LNTH'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
LNTH leads on balance| Metric | EFX | LNTH |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 3.1% | 2.9% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 8.4% | -37.2% |
| Gross margin | 44.4% | 60.1% |
| Operating margin | 17.9% | 19.4% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 15% | 23.3% |
| Debt to equity | 1.25 | 0.48 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | EFX | LNTH |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 10.8% | 0.4% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 10.5% | 0.4% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 3.6% | -4% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -8.3% | 23.1% |
| Year to date | -18.6% | 50.8% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -22.3% | 78.1% |
Technicals
LNTH has the stronger structure| Metric | EFX | LNTH |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 78.6 | 68.2 |
| ADX (14) | 28.9 | 15.1 |
| Price vs 50-day | 5.1% | -0.1% |
| Price vs 200-day | -1.1% | 11.4% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 56.2% | 3.2% |
Risk
LNTH is the more resilient| Metric | EFX | LNTH |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.57 | 0.6 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.51 | 1.86 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.7 | 3.02 |
| Max drawdown | -41.3% | -12.2% |
| Current drawdown | -24.5% | -9.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 40.7% | 32.6% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -4.3% | -2.8% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, EFX or LNTH?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, LNTH is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 68 against EFX's 57. The edge comes from risk resilience and quality. EFX is not without a case — it holds the better momentum 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 EFX or LNTH the better buy right now?
LNTH carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 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 LNTH over EFX?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. LNTH leads Risk Resilience by 36 points; LNTH leads Quality by 27 points; EFX leads Momentum by 9 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, EFX or LNTH?
Analyst price targets imply +14.1% upside for EFX and +8.8% for LNTH, so the Street currently favors EFX. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors LNTH. 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, EFX or LNTH?
Neither name separates on the peer-relative Value factor. The two are level on Value. 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, EFX or LNTH?
EFX 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, EFX or LNTH?
EFX on the Momentum factor, by 9 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, EFX or LNTH?
LNTH is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. LNTH on Risk Resilience, by 36 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 EFX more profitable than LNTH?
LNTH leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 44.4% vs 60.1%; operating margin 17.9% vs 19.4%; ttm roe 15% vs 23.3%.
Is LNTH's lead over EFX getting stronger or weaker?
LNTH lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 16 to 11 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 2026-08-24, when LNTH moved ahead of EFX.
What would change the EFX vs LNTH verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: EFX closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 36 points behind, the largest single contributor to LNTH's edge; EFX's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; LNTH's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 5 points over 30 sessions, and a further 11-point move would eliminate LNTH's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about EFX and LNTH?
EFX: 2 bullish / 3 bearish, conflicted. LNTH: 3 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. 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 EFX is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On LNTH it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare EFX and LNTH 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.