EFX vs LNTH Stock Comparison
Equifax Inc. vs Lantheus Holdings, Inc.
LNTH leads
LNTH leads by 17 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Quality, and the lead has widened from 3 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors EFX on target upside.
Stable: 4 of 6 evidence groups support LNTH, its lead is widening, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Equifax Inc.
Lantheus Holdings, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors LNTH over EFX, 61 versus 44 as of Sep 5, 2026. LNTH's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and quality. 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 Stable on stability. LNTH lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 3 to 17 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Equifax Inc. and Lantheus Holdings, Inc. across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
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 Resilience15%37 vs 69LNTH +32
- Quality30%46 vs 73LNTH +27
- Momentum25%37 vs 50LNTH +13
- Value30%53 vs 53Even
4 of 6 evidence groups favor LNTH. LNTH’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and quality.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-04, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-03.
Largest factor move: Momentum -30
New signals
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (4.12%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum +1
No new signals fired.
LNTH's lead widened by 10 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
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 analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 40.4% against 5.1%.
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 at 30% each.
Growth
EFXEFX on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
LNTHLNTH on the Momentum factor, by 13 points.
Lower downside
LNTHLNTH on Risk Resilience, by 32 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 | +20.2% | +6.1% | EFX has more room |
| Target dispersion | +33.8% | +29% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 11 | 7 | 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 | 44 vs 61 |
| 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 -0.6% vs -2.1%; vs 200-day -5.7% vs 19.9% |
| Risk Resilience | LNTH | Risk Resilience 37 vs 69 |
| Analyst expectations | EFX | Target upside 20.2% vs 6.1% |
✓ 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 conclusion rests on a wide gap and broad agreement. It is unlikely to turn on a single session.
- The AIQ gap is wide at 17 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 · Apr 23 – Sep 4LNTH lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 3 to 17 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- LNTH +17
- 44 vs 61
- 7 sessions ago
- LNTH +2
- 57 vs 59
- 30 sessions ago
- LNTH +3
- 53 vs 56
- 90 sessions ago
- LNTH +20
- 46 vs 66
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.
0 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (5.40%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (4.12%)
2 bullish / 0 bearish / 2 neutral
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (22.44%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- ATR Contraction - Coiling — neutral, volatility, short horizon (1.04%)
Price vs model alignment
Whether the latest session's price move confirms what the model did over the same session, or contradicts it.
Price and the AIQ Score both moved down over the latest session (price -6.37%, AIQ -9 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -0.01%, 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.
- 1EFX closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 32 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.
- 4A regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, 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
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
LNTH leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | EFX | LNTH |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -8.9% | 0.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -3% | 0% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 2.9% | 0% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -14.8% | 39.2% |
| Year to date | -18.4% | 51.7% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -25.4% | 83.1% |
Technicals
LNTH has the stronger structure| Metric | EFX | LNTH |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 50.2 | 50.9 |
| ADX (14) | 19.4 | 9.9 |
| Price vs 50-day | -0.6% | -2.1% |
| Price vs 200-day | -5.7% | 19.9% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 40.4% | 5.1% |
Risk
LNTH is the more resilient| Metric | EFX | LNTH |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.53 | 0.58 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.69 | 1.86 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.87 | 3.14 |
| Max drawdown | -42.1% | -12.2% |
| Current drawdown | -32.5% | -9% |
| Annualized volatility | 39.3% | 35.2% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -4.3% | -2.9% |
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 Sep 5, 2026, scoring 61 against EFX's 44. The edge comes from risk resilience 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 EFX or LNTH the better buy right now?
LNTH carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 5, 2026, and the comparison is rated Stable — 4 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 LNTH over EFX?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. LNTH leads Risk Resilience by 32 points; LNTH leads Quality by 27 points; LNTH leads Momentum by 13 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 +20.2% upside for EFX and +6.1% 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?
LNTH on the Momentum factor, by 13 points. Momentum carries 25% of 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 32 points. The Risk Resilience factor weights 15% of 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: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 3 to 17 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-23 and 2026-09-04. 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 32 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; a regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
What do the current signals say about EFX and LNTH?
EFX: 0 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral. LNTH: 2 bullish / 0 bearish / 2 neutral. 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
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality (30%), Value (30%), Momentum (25%) and Risk (15%). 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.