IFF vs LYB Stock Comparison
Compare IFF and LYB across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between IFF and LYB?
IFF leads the current stock comparison as International Flavors & Fragrances Inc., with the clearest separation coming from risk resilience and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
International Flavors & Fragrances Inc. vs LyondellBasell Industries N.V.
IFF leads
IFF leads by 18 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Quality, and the lead has widened from 11 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors LYB on target upside.
Stable: 5 of 6 evidence groups support IFF, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
International Flavors & Fragrances Inc.
LyondellBasell Industries N.V.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors IFF over LYB, 56 versus 38 as of Sep 11, 2026. IFF's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and quality. IFF also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors LYB. 5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor IFF today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. IFF lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 11 to 18 points over 30 sessions. IFF leads on all four AIQ factor dimensions. Value is itself one of those four, so a sweep is not explained by valuation alone — it deserves additional scrutiny for unmodeled catalysts, expectations or event risk.
Compare International Flavors & Fragrances Inc. and LyondellBasell Industries N.V. 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 LYB 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.
- Risk Resilience73 vs 46IFF +27
- Quality42 vs 16IFF +26
- Momentum63 vs 50IFF +13
- Value54 vs 47IFF +7
5 of 6 evidence groups favor IFF. IFF’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and quality.
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 -7
No new signals fired.
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 LYB both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
IFF (International Flavors & Fragrances Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and quality.
LYB (LyondellBasell Industries N.V.): the counter-case, on analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 31.1% against 21.5%.
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
LYBLYB on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
IFFIFF on the peer-relative Value factor, by 7 points.
Momentum
IFFIFF on the Momentum factor, by 13 points.
Lower downside
IFFIFF on Risk Resilience, by 27 points.
Analyst upside
LYBLYB 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 LYB. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | IFF | LYB | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +8.2% | +20.2% | LYB has more room |
| Target dispersion | +27.6% | +49.6% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | 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
5 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 38 |
| Fundamentals | IFFon balance | revenue growth -28.7% vs 27.5%; EPS growth -69.7% vs 3.5%; TTM ROE 2.1% vs -3.4%; gross margin 37.5% vs 13.2%; operating margin 7.8% vs 3.2% — IFF takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | IFF | Value 54 vs 47 |
| Technicals | IFF | Price vs 50-day 2% vs 3.9%; vs 200-day 12.2% vs 5.7% |
| Risk Resilience | IFF | Risk Resilience 73 vs 46 |
| Analyst expectations | LYB | Target upside 8.2% vs 20.2% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of IFF and LYB 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 18 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 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 18 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- IFF +18
- 56 vs 38
- 7 sessions ago
- IFF +19
- 59 vs 40
- 30 sessions ago
- IFF +11
- 55 vs 44
- 90 sessions ago
- IFF +25
- 57 vs 32
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.
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
3 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (0.76%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium 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 and the AIQ Score both moved down over the latest session (price -0.95%, 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.
- 1LYB closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 27 points behind, the largest single contributor to IFF's edge.
- 2LYB's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 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
IFF leads on balance| Metric | IFF | LYB |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -28.7% | 27.5% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -69.7% | 3.5% |
| Gross margin | 37.5% | 13.2% |
| Operating margin | 7.8% | 3.2% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 2.1% | -3.4% |
| Debt to equity | 0.45 | 1.33 |
Performance
IFF leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | IFF | LYB |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -3.3% | -3.4% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 0.2% | 2.4% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 13.2% | -1.3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 22.3% | -4.6% |
| Year to date | 24.7% | 48.5% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 27% | 17.7% |
Technicals
IFF has the stronger structure| Metric | IFF | LYB |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 52.9 | 36.4 |
| ADX (14) | 24.2 | 19.5 |
| Price vs 50-day | 2% | 3.9% |
| Price vs 200-day | 12.2% | 5.7% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 21.5% | 31.1% |
Risk
IFF is the more resilient| Metric | IFF | LYB |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.74 | -0.35 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.78 | 0.51 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.52 | 0.82 |
| Max drawdown | -19.7% | -36.2% |
| Current drawdown | -4.6% | -21.9% |
| Annualized volatility | 35.8% | 43.1% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.8% | -3.8% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, IFF or LYB?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, IFF is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 56 against LYB's 38. The edge comes from risk resilience and quality. 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 LYB the better buy right now?
IFF carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 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 IFF over LYB?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. IFF leads Risk Resilience by 27 points; IFF leads Quality by 26 points; IFF leads Momentum by 13 points. IFF leads on all four AIQ factor dimensions. Value is itself one of those four, so the sweep is not explained by LYB simply being cheaper — it warrants extra scrutiny for unmodeled catalysts, forward expectations or event risk the factors do not capture.
Which has more analyst upside, IFF or LYB?
Analyst price targets imply +8.2% upside for IFF and +20.2% for LYB, so the Street currently favors LYB. 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 LYB?
IFF is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. IFF on the peer-relative Value factor, by 7 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 LYB?
LYB 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 LYB?
IFF on the Momentum factor, by 13 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 LYB?
IFF is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. IFF on Risk Resilience, by 27 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 LYB?
IFF leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 37.5% vs 13.2%; operating margin 7.8% vs 3.2%; ttm roe 2.1% vs -3.4%.
Is IFF's lead over LYB getting stronger or weaker?
IFF lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 11 to 18 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the IFF vs LYB verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: LYB closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 27 points behind, the largest single contributor to IFF's edge; LYB's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; 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 LYB?
IFF: 3 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. LYB: 3 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 IFF is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On LYB it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare IFF and LYB 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.