GME vs LULU Stock Comparison
LULU currently leads GME in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 66 vs 52. The clearest difference is quality, while GME has the stronger momentum profile.
What is the main difference between GME and LULU?
LULU leads the current stock comparison as Lululemon Athletica Inc., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
GameStop Corp. vs Lululemon Athletica Inc.
LULU leads
LULU leads by 14 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Risk Resilience, and the lead has widened from 5 points over 30 sessions.
Stable: 5 of 6 evidence groups support LULU, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
GameStop Corp.
Lululemon Athletica Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors LULU over GME, 66 versus 52 as of Oct 21, 2026. LULU's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and risk resilience, while GME holds the stronger momentum profile. LULU also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor LULU today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. LULU lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 5 to 14 points over 30 sessions.
Compare GameStop Corp. and Lululemon Athletica Inc. across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Performance over time
Price return from daily closes; distributions are not included.
Price return comparison
Growth of $10,000, price only
Split-adjusted closes only. Distributions are excluded, which understates the return of any fund or stock that pays them.
Compare GME and LULU 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.
- Quality48 vs 80LULU +32
- Risk Resilience42 vs 64LULU +22
- Momentum72 vs 54GME +18
- Value46 vs 63LULU +17
5 of 6 evidence groups favor LULU. LULU’s edge is concentrated in quality and risk resilience; GME 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 -3
New signals
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum +7
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
LULU's lead widened by 3 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — GME and LULU both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
LULU (Lululemon Athletica Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and risk resilience.
GME (GameStop Corp.): the counter-case, on momentum, technicals — but at materially higher volatility, 46.1% against 29.8%.
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
LULULULU on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
GMEGME on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
LULULULU on the peer-relative Value factor, by 17 points.
Momentum
GMEGME on the Momentum factor, by 18 points.
Lower downside
LULULULU on Risk Resilience, by 22 points.
Analyst upside
LULULULU 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 | GME | LULU | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -56.3% | +11.9% | LULU has more room |
| Target dispersion | 0% | +69.4% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | — | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 1 | 12 | 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 LULU. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | LULU | 52 vs 66 |
| Fundamentals | LULUon balance | revenue growth -24.4% vs -32.1%; EPS growth 210.7% vs -66%; TTM ROE 14% vs 31.3%; gross margin 34.4% vs 55.7%; operating margin 10.6% vs 18.2% — LULU takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | LULU | Value 46 vs 63 |
| Technicals | GME | Price vs 50-day 19.8% vs -8.6%; vs 200-day 17.4% vs -27.6% |
| Risk Resilience | LULU | Risk Resilience 42 vs 64 |
| Analyst expectations | LULU | Target upside -56.3% vs 11.9% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of GME and LULU 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 14 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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)
- 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 LULU.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20LULU lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 5 to 14 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- LULU +14
- 52 vs 66
- 7 sessions ago
- LULU +7
- 55 vs 62
- 30 sessions ago
- LULU +5
- 55 vs 60
- 90 sessions ago
- LULU +18
- 42 vs 60
The lead has not changed hands in this window.
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 / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only GME
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only LULU
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: Death Cross Active, ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode.
LULU 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.
Price and the AIQ Score both moved down over the latest session (price -0.68%, AIQ -1 points).
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 2 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -3.41%, AIQ +2 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.
- 1GME closes the Quality gap — currently 32 points behind, the largest single contributor to LULU's edge.
- 2GME's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3LULU's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 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
LULU leads on balance| Metric | GME | LULU |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -24.4% | -32.1% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 210.7% | -66% |
| Gross margin | 34.4% | 55.7% |
| Operating margin | 10.6% | 18.2% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 14% | 31.3% |
| Debt to equity | 0.74 | 0.44 |
Performance
GME leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | GME | LULU |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -2.8% | 5.9% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 10.2% | -3.7% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 22.5% | -11.8% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 8.2% | -40% |
| Year to date | 31.8% | -51.9% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 15.3% | -39.3% |
Technicals
GME has the stronger structure| Metric | GME | LULU |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 62.1 | 60.2 |
| ADX (14) | 56.2 | 23.8 |
| Price vs 50-day | 19.8% | -8.6% |
| Price vs 200-day | 17.4% | -27.6% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 46.1% | 29.8% |
Risk
LULU is the more resilient| Metric | GME | LULU |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.55 | 1.26 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.45 | -1 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.64 | -1.26 |
| Max drawdown | -32.6% | -57.4% |
| Current drawdown | -5.5% | -53.7% |
| Annualized volatility | 38.6% | 45.3% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.2% | -4.2% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, GME or LULU?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, LULU is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 66 against GME's 52. The edge comes from quality and risk resilience. GME 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 GME or LULU the better buy right now?
LULU 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 LULU over GME?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. LULU leads Quality by 32 points; LULU leads Risk Resilience by 22 points; GME leads Momentum by 18 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, GME or LULU?
Analyst price targets imply -56.3% upside for GME and +11.9% for LULU, so the Street currently favors LULU. 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, GME or LULU?
LULU is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. LULU on the peer-relative Value factor, by 17 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, GME or LULU?
GME 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, GME or LULU?
GME on the Momentum factor, by 18 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, GME or LULU?
LULU is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. LULU on Risk Resilience, by 22 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 GME more profitable than LULU?
LULU leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 34.4% vs 55.7%; operating margin 10.6% vs 18.2%; ttm roe 14% vs 31.3%.
Is LULU's lead over GME getting stronger or weaker?
LULU lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 5 to 14 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the GME vs LULU verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: GME closes the Quality gap — currently 32 points behind, the largest single contributor to LULU's edge; GME's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; LULU's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 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 GME and LULU?
GME: 1 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted. LULU: 1 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 GME is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On LULU it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare GME and LULU 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.