IBKR vs L Stock Comparison
Interactive Brokers Group, Inc. vs Loews Corporation
L leads
L leads by 7 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Risk Resilience, and the lead has widened from 3 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, 52 versus 45 as of Sep 5, 2026. L's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and risk resilience, while IBKR holds the stronger momentum profile. L also shows the weaker 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 3 to 7 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.
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.
- Value30%24 vs 58L +34
- Momentum25%58 vs 35IBKR +23
- Risk Resilience15%56 vs 62L +6
- Quality30%51 vs 54Even
3 of 5 evidence groups favor L. L’s edge is concentrated in value and risk resilience; IBKR keeps a meaningful momentum edge.
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 -4
No new signals fired.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
L's lead widened by 1 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
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 value and risk resilience.
IBKR (Interactive Brokers Group, Inc.): the counter-case, on momentum, fundamentals, technicals — but at materially higher volatility, 46.6% against 11.9%.
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 at 30% each.
Growth
LL on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
LL on the peer-relative Value factor, by 34 points.
Momentum
IBKRIBKR on the Momentum factor, by 23 points.
Lower downside
LL on Risk Resilience, by 6 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 | +15.9% | — | Level |
| Target dispersion | +14.9% | — | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 4 | 4 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
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 | 45 vs 52 |
| Fundamentals | IBKRon balance | revenue growth 9.3% vs 3.9%; EPS growth 16.7% vs 32.5%; TTM ROE 20.5% vs 10.3%; gross margin 93.3% vs 47%; operating margin 87.1% vs 16.6% — IBKR takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | L | Value 24 vs 58 |
| Technicals | IBKR | Price vs 50-day 0.7% vs -3.9%; vs 200-day 17.4% vs 0.4% |
| Risk Resilience | L | Risk Resilience 56 vs 62 |
| 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 moderate at 7 points.
- 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 · Apr 23 – Sep 4L lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 3 to 7 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- L +7
- 45 vs 52
- 7 sessions ago
- L +1
- 50 vs 51
- 30 sessions ago
- L +3
- 47 vs 50
- 90 sessions ago
- L +14
- 49 vs 63
The lead changed hands 5 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.
3 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (16.61%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
1 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (4.53%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, 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 down over the latest session (price -0.36%, AIQ -1 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -0.67%, 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.
- 1IBKR closes the Value gap — currently 34 points behind, the largest single contributor to L's edge.
- 2IBKR generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover.
- 3L's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 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
IBKR leads on balance| Metric | IBKR | L |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 9.3% | 3.9% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 16.7% | 32.5% |
| Gross margin | 93.3% | 47% |
| Operating margin | 87.1% | 16.6% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 20.5% | 10.3% |
| Debt to equity | 7.69 | 0.47 |
Performance
IBKR leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | IBKR | L |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -3.4% | -0.4% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 5.5% | -5.4% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 9.7% | 1.6% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 38.9% | -0.3% |
| Year to date | 44% | 3.8% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 44.8% | 12.8% |
Technicals
IBKR has the stronger structure| Metric | IBKR | L |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 47.2 | 35 |
| ADX (14) | 11.7 | 23.1 |
| Price vs 50-day | 0.7% | -3.9% |
| Price vs 200-day | 17.4% | 0.4% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 46.6% | 11.9% |
Risk
L is the more resilient| Metric | IBKR | L |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.98 | 0 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.02 | 0.54 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.68 | 0.73 |
| Max drawdown | -18.8% | -9.3% |
| Current drawdown | -5.7% | -8.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 40.1% | 16.3% |
| 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 Sep 5, 2026, scoring 52 against IBKR's 45. The edge comes from value and risk resilience. IBKR 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 IBKR or L the better buy right now?
L carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 5, 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 at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. L leads Value by 34 points; IBKR leads Momentum by 23 points; L leads Risk Resilience by 6 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 +15.9% 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 34 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?
IBKR on the Momentum factor, by 23 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, IBKR or L?
L is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. L on Risk Resilience, by 6 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 IBKR more profitable than L?
IBKR leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 93.3% vs 47%; operating margin 87.1% vs 16.6%; ttm roe 20.5% vs 10.3%.
Is L's lead over IBKR getting stronger or weaker?
L lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 3 to 7 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 5 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 Value gap — currently 34 points behind, the largest single contributor to L's edge; IBKR generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover; l's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; 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 IBKR and L?
IBKR: 3 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. L: 1 bullish / 1 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 IBKR is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On L it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare IBKR and L 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.