IBKR vs L Stock Comparison
L currently leads IBKR in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 63 vs 49. The clearest difference is momentum, while IBKR has the stronger quality profile.
What is the main difference between IBKR and L?
L leads the current stock comparison as Loews Corporation, with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Interactive Brokers Group, Inc. vs Loews Corporation
L leads
L leads by 14 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Value, and the lead has widened from 8 points over 30 sessions.
Competitive: 3 of 5 evidence groups support L, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Interactive Brokers Group, Inc.
Loews Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors L over IBKR, 63 versus 49 as of Oct 21, 2026. L's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and value, while IBKR holds the stronger quality profile. L also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 5 covered evidence groups favor L today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. L lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 8 to 14 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Interactive Brokers Group, Inc. and Loews 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 IBKR and L 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.
- Momentum43 vs 81L +38
- Value24 vs 57L +33
- Quality72 vs 54IBKR +18
- Risk Resilience66 vs 61IBKR +5
3 of 5 evidence groups favor L. L’s edge is concentrated in momentum and value; IBKR keeps a meaningful quality 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 +12
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +3
New signals
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
L's lead narrowed by 2 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — IBKR and L both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
L (Loews Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and value.
IBKR (Interactive Brokers Group, Inc.): the counter-case, on quality, risk resilience, fundamentals — but at materially higher volatility, 31.6% against 13.8%.
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
LL on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
LL on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
LL on the peer-relative Value factor, by 33 points.
Momentum
LL on the Momentum factor, by 38 points.
Lower downside
IBKRIBKR on Risk Resilience, by 5 points.
Analyst upside
EvenAnalyst targets are level or not covered for both names.
AIQ vs Wall Street
Where the systematic read and the analyst consensus line up — and where they do not.
| Measure | IBKR | L | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +24.7% | — | Level |
| Target dispersion | +17.9% | — | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 9 | 4 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | IBKR | L |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 24.78% | 0.00% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $0.100 | $0.250 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $0.303 | $0.250 |
| Years increased | 2 | 2 |
| No cut in window | Yes | No (2) |
| Cohort rank | not ranked | not ranked |
IBKR grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 24.78% a year against L's 0.00%. IBKR never reduced its regular dividend in the window; L did in 2 years. They are ranked in different cohorts — variable-dividend payers and US dividend-paying corporations — so their ranks are not comparable with each other.
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
3 of 5 covered evidence groups favor L. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | L | 49 vs 63 |
| Fundamentals | IBKRon balance | revenue growth 8.1% vs 3.9%; EPS growth -1.4% vs 32.5%; TTM ROE 11.7% vs 10.3%; gross margin 94.6% vs 47%; operating margin 87% vs 16.6% — IBKR takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | L | Value 24 vs 57 |
| Technicals | L | Price vs 50-day -5.1% vs 2.7%; vs 200-day 0.4% vs 2.1% |
| Risk Resilience | IBKR | Risk Resilience 66 vs 61 |
| Analyst expectations | Not covered | Not covered |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of IBKR and L 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 wide at 14 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (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 L.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20L lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 8 to 14 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- L +14
- 49 vs 63
- 7 sessions ago
- L +15
- 42 vs 57
- 30 sessions ago
- L +8
- 41 vs 49
- 90 sessions ago
- L +1
- 49 vs 50
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on Sep 1 when L moved ahead of IBKR.
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 / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only IBKR
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (8.94%)
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (3.52%)
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
3 bullish / 3 bearish, conflicted
Only L
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (0.34%)
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
L 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 up over the latest session (price +2.92%, AIQ +3 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.33%, 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.
- 1IBKR closes the Momentum gap — currently 38 points behind, the largest single contributor to L's edge.
- 2IBKR's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 3L's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 3 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
IBKR leads on balance| Metric | IBKR | L |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 8.1% | 3.9% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -1.4% | 32.5% |
| Gross margin | 94.6% | 47% |
| Operating margin | 87% | 16.6% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 11.7% | 10.3% |
| Debt to equity | 0 | 0.47 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | IBKR | L |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -5.2% | 2.7% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -9.8% | 5.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -10% | -2.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 4.1% | -0.1% |
| Year to date | 28.9% | 5.7% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 21% | 13.4% |
Technicals
L has the stronger structure| Metric | IBKR | L |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 44.4 | 78.3 |
| ADX (14) | 20.1 | 21.8 |
| Price vs 50-day | -5.1% | 2.7% |
| Price vs 200-day | 0.4% | 2.1% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 31.6% | 13.8% |
Risk
IBKR is the more resilient| Metric | IBKR | L |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.05 | -0.07 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.67 | 0.58 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.16 | 0.8 |
| Max drawdown | -18.8% | -12.5% |
| Current drawdown | -15.6% | -6.7% |
| Annualized volatility | 39.4% | 16% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.8% | -1.6% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, IBKR or L?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, L is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 63 against IBKR's 49. The edge comes from momentum and value. IBKR is not without a case — it holds the better quality 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 IBKR or L the better buy right now?
L carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 3 of 5 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 L over IBKR?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. L leads Momentum by 38 points; L leads Value by 33 points; IBKR leads Quality by 18 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, IBKR or L?
Analyst price targets imply +24.7% upside for IBKR and not covered for L. 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, IBKR or L?
L is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. L on the peer-relative Value factor, by 33 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, IBKR or L?
L 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, IBKR or L?
L on the Momentum factor, by 38 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, IBKR or L?
IBKR is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. IBKR on Risk Resilience, by 5 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 IBKR more profitable than L?
IBKR leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 94.6% vs 47%; operating margin 87% vs 16.6%; ttm roe 11.7% vs 10.3%.
Is L's lead over IBKR getting stronger or weaker?
L lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 8 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 changed hands 2 times in that window, most recently on 2026-09-01, when L moved ahead of IBKR.
What would change the IBKR vs L verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: IBKR closes the Momentum gap — currently 38 points behind, the largest single contributor to L's edge; IBKR's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it; l's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 3 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 IBKR and L?
IBKR: 1 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. L: 3 bullish / 3 bearish, 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 IBKR is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On L it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare IBKR and L 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.