IFF vs LIN Stock Comparison
Compare IFF and LIN across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between IFF and LIN?
IFF leads the current stock comparison as International Flavors & Fragrances Inc., with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
International Flavors & Fragrances Inc. vs Linde plc
IFF leads
IFF leads by 14 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Value, and the lead has widened from 11 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors LIN on target upside.
Competitive: 4 of 6 evidence groups support IFF, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
International Flavors & Fragrances Inc.
Linde plc
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors IFF over LIN, 56 versus 42 as of Sep 11, 2026. IFF's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and value, while LIN holds the stronger quality profile. IFF also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors LIN. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor IFF today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. IFF lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 11 to 14 points over 30 sessions.
Compare International Flavors & Fragrances Inc. and Linde plc across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Performance over time
Price-return comparison using available daily close history.
Total return comparison
Growth of $10,000
Based on available close-price history. Distribution reinvestment is not added unless already reflected in the source series.
Compare IFF and LIN 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.
- Momentum63 vs 21IFF +42
- Value54 vs 34IFF +20
- Quality42 vs 59LIN +17
- Risk Resilience73 vs 62IFF +11
4 of 6 evidence groups favor IFF. IFF’s edge is concentrated in momentum and value; LIN keeps a meaningful quality edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-10, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-09.
Largest factor move: Momentum -1
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum -5
New signals
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
IFF's lead widened by 2 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — IFF and LIN both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
IFF (International Flavors & Fragrances Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and value.
LIN (Linde plc): the counter-case, on quality, fundamentals, analyst expectations.
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
IFFIFF on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
LINLIN on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
IFFIFF on the peer-relative Value factor, by 20 points.
Momentum
IFFIFF on the Momentum factor, by 42 points.
Lower downside
IFFIFF on Risk Resilience, by 11 points.
Analyst upside
LINLIN on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors IFF, analyst targets favor LIN. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | IFF | LIN | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +8.2% | +21.8% | LIN has more room |
| Target dispersion | +27.6% | +15.3% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 6 | 8 | 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 IFF. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | IFF | 56 vs 42 |
| Fundamentals | LIN | revenue growth -28.7% vs 5.8%; EPS growth -69.7% vs 4.2%; TTM ROE 2.1% vs 18.9%; gross margin 37.5% vs 45.6%; operating margin 7.8% vs 28.7% |
| Valuation | IFF | Value 54 vs 34 |
| Technicals | IFF | Price vs 50-day 2% vs -6.5%; vs 200-day 12.2% vs -2.9% |
| Risk Resilience | IFF | Risk Resilience 73 vs 62 |
| Analyst expectations | LIN | Target upside 8.2% vs 21.8% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of IFF and LIN 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 IFF.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10IFF lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 11 to 14 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- IFF +14
- 56 vs 42
- 7 sessions ago
- IFF +10
- 59 vs 49
- 30 sessions ago
- IFF +11
- 55 vs 44
- 90 sessions ago
- IFF +1
- 57 vs 56
The lead changed hands 6 times in this window, most recently on Jun 8 when IFF moved ahead of LIN.
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 (9.33%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
2 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (3.57%)
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
IFF 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.
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -0.52%, AIQ 0 points).
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 2 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +1%, 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.
- 1LIN closes the Momentum gap — currently 42 points behind, the largest single contributor to IFF's edge.
- 2LIN's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3IFF's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 1 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
LIN leads on balance| Metric | IFF | LIN |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -28.7% | 5.8% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -69.7% | 4.2% |
| Gross margin | 37.5% | 45.6% |
| Operating margin | 7.8% | 28.7% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 2.1% | 18.9% |
| Debt to equity | 0.45 | 0.72 |
Performance
IFF leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | IFF | LIN |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -3.3% | -5.3% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 0.2% | -3.7% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 13.2% | -9.3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 22.3% | -4.1% |
| Year to date | 24.7% | 8.3% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 27% | -1.7% |
Technicals
IFF has the stronger structure| Metric | IFF | LIN |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 52.9 | 31.5 |
| ADX (14) | 24.2 | 22.7 |
| Price vs 50-day | 2% | -6.5% |
| Price vs 200-day | 12.2% | -2.9% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 21.5% | 14.7% |
Risk
IFF is the more resilient| Metric | IFF | LIN |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.74 | 0.09 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.78 | -0.24 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.52 | -0.36 |
| Max drawdown | -19.7% | -19.5% |
| Current drawdown | -4.6% | -15.6% |
| Annualized volatility | 35.8% | 19.2% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.8% | -1.9% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, IFF or LIN?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, IFF is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 56 against LIN's 42. The edge comes from momentum and value. LIN 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 IFF or LIN the better buy right now?
IFF carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 4 of 6 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 IFF over LIN?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. IFF leads Momentum by 42 points; IFF leads Value by 20 points; LIN leads Quality by 17 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, IFF or LIN?
Analyst price targets imply +8.2% upside for IFF and +21.8% for LIN, so the Street currently favors LIN. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors IFF. 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, IFF or LIN?
IFF is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. IFF on the peer-relative Value factor, by 20 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, IFF or LIN?
LIN 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, IFF or LIN?
IFF on the Momentum factor, by 42 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, IFF or LIN?
IFF is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. IFF on Risk Resilience, by 11 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 IFF more profitable than LIN?
LIN leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 37.5% vs 45.6%; operating margin 7.8% vs 28.7%; ttm roe 2.1% vs 18.9%.
Is IFF's lead over LIN getting stronger or weaker?
IFF lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 11 to 14 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has changed hands 6 times in that window, most recently on 2026-06-08, when IFF moved ahead of LIN.
What would change the IFF vs LIN verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: LIN closes the Momentum gap — currently 42 points behind, the largest single contributor to IFF's edge; LIN's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it; IFF's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 1 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 IFF and LIN?
IFF: 3 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. LIN: 2 bullish / 2 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 IFF is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On LIN it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare IFF and LIN 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.