IBOC vs L Stock Comparison
International Bancshares Corporation vs Loews Corporation
IBOC leads
IBOC leads by 4 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Momentum.
Competitive: 3 of 5 evidence groups support IBOC, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
International Bancshares Corporation
Loews Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors IBOC over L, 56 versus 52 as of Sep 5, 2026. IBOC's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and momentum, while L holds the stronger value profile. IBOC also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 5 covered evidence groups favor IBOC today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 4 points. IBOC lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 4 points over 30 sessions.
Compare International Bancshares Corporation and Loews Corporation across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Compare IBOC 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.
- Quality30%69 vs 54IBOC +15
- Value30%50 vs 58L +8
- Momentum25%41 vs 35IBOC +6
- Risk Resilience15%68 vs 62IBOC +6
3 of 5 evidence groups favor IBOC. IBOC’s edge is concentrated in quality and momentum; L keeps a meaningful value 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
New signals
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
IBOC's lead widened by 1 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — IBOC and L both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
IBOC (International Bancshares Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and momentum.
L (Loews Corporation): the counter-case, on value, valuation.
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
IBOCIBOC 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 8 points.
Momentum
IBOCIBOC on the Momentum factor, by 6 points.
Lower downside
IBOCIBOC 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 | IBOC | L | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +18.2% | — | Level |
| Target dispersion | 0% | — | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 1 | 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 IBOC. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | IBOC | 56 vs 52 |
| Fundamentals | IBOCon balance | revenue growth 2.7% vs 3.9%; EPS growth -6.1% vs 32.5%; TTM ROE 12.7% vs 10.3%; gross margin 78.7% vs 47%; operating margin 49.2% vs 16.6% — IBOC takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | L | Value 50 vs 58 |
| Technicals | Even | Price vs 50-day -3.2% vs -3.9%; vs 200-day 0.8% vs 0.4% |
| Risk Resilience | IBOC | Risk Resilience 68 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 IBOC 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 narrow at 4 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (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 IBOC.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 23 – Sep 4IBOC lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 4 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- IBOC +4
- 56 vs 52
- 7 sessions ago
- IBOC +2
- 53 vs 51
- 30 sessions ago
- IBOC +3
- 53 vs 50
- 90 sessions ago
- L +1
- 62 vs 63
The lead changed hands 3 times in this window, most recently on Aug 13 when IBOC moved ahead of L.
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 / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (4.16%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short 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 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 and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.52%, 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.
- 1L closes the Quality gap — currently 15 points behind, the largest single contributor to IBOC's edge.
- 2L's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 3IBOC'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
IBOC leads on balance| Metric | IBOC | L |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 2.7% | 3.9% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -6.1% | 32.5% |
| Gross margin | 78.7% | 47% |
| Operating margin | 49.2% | 16.6% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 12.7% | 10.3% |
| Debt to equity | 0.22 | 0.47 |
Performance
IBOC leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | IBOC | L |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 1.4% | -0.4% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -2.2% | -5.4% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -1.5% | 1.6% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 8.1% | -0.3% |
| Year to date | 8.2% | 3.8% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 1.2% | 12.8% |
Technicals
Split| Metric | IBOC | L |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 41 | 35 |
| ADX (14) | 27.4 | 23.1 |
| Price vs 50-day | -3.2% | -3.9% |
| Price vs 200-day | 0.8% | 0.4% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 13.5% | 11.9% |
Risk
IBOC is the more resilient| Metric | IBOC | L |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.4 | 0 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.1 | 0.54 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.14 | 0.73 |
| Max drawdown | -12.4% | -9.3% |
| Current drawdown | -7.6% | -8.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 22.1% | 16.3% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2% | -1.6% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, IBOC or L?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, IBOC is the stronger of the two as of Sep 5, 2026, scoring 56 against L's 52. The edge comes from quality and momentum. L is not without a case — it holds the better value 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 IBOC or L the better buy right now?
IBOC 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 IBOC over L?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. IBOC leads Quality by 15 points; L leads Value by 8 points; IBOC leads Momentum by 6 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, IBOC or L?
Analyst price targets imply +18.2% upside for IBOC 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, IBOC or L?
L is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. L on the peer-relative Value factor, by 8 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, IBOC 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, IBOC or L?
IBOC on the Momentum factor, by 6 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, IBOC or L?
IBOC is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. IBOC 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 IBOC more profitable than L?
IBOC leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 78.7% vs 47%; operating margin 49.2% vs 16.6%; ttm roe 12.7% vs 10.3%.
Is IBOC's lead over L getting stronger or weaker?
IBOC lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 4 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 3 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-13, when IBOC moved ahead of L.
What would change the IBOC vs L verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: L closes the Quality gap — currently 15 points behind, the largest single contributor to IBOC's edge; l's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it; IBOC'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 IBOC and L?
IBOC: 2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. 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 IBOC is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On L it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare IBOC 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.