LRCX vs KLAC Stock Comparison
Compare LRCX and KLAC across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between LRCX and KLAC?
KLAC leads the current stock comparison as KLA Corporation, with the clearest separation coming from risk resilience and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Lam Research Corporation vs KLA Corporation
KLAC leads
KLAC leads by 1 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Momentum, having only recently taken the lead back from LRCX. Wall Street currently favors LRCX on target upside.
Fragile: 2 of 6 evidence groups support KLAC, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Lam Research Corporation
KLA Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors KLAC over LRCX, 53 versus 52 as of Sep 11, 2026. KLAC's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and momentum, while LRCX holds the stronger quality profile. KLAC also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors LRCX. 2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor KLAC today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. KLAC lead: Reversed — LRCX led by 2 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; KLAC now leads by 1.
Compare Lam Research Corporation and KLA Corporation 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 LRCX and KLAC 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 Resilience39 vs 46KLAC +7
- Momentum45 vs 51KLAC +6
- Quality88 vs 83LRCX +5
- Value28 vs 28Even
2 of 6 evidence groups favor KLAC. KLAC’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and momentum; LRCX 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 -11
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum -3
No new signals fired.
The lead changed hands: KLAC moved ahead of LRCX in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — LRCX and KLAC both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
KLAC (KLA Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and momentum.
LRCX (Lam Research Corporation): the counter-case, on quality, technicals, analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 53.3% against 44.5%.
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
KLACKLAC on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
LRCXLRCX on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
KLACKLAC on the Momentum factor, by 6 points.
Lower downside
KLACKLAC on Risk Resilience, by 7 points.
Analyst upside
LRCXLRCX on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors KLAC, analyst targets favor LRCX. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | LRCX | KLAC | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +26.8% | +24.1% | LRCX has more room |
| Target dispersion | +79.3% | +69.2% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 17 | 16 | 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
2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor KLAC. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | Even | 52 vs 53 |
| Fundamentals | KLACon balance | revenue growth 15.1% vs 7.1%; EPS growth 24.7% vs 13%; TTM ROE 67% vs 85.4%; gross margin 50.5% vs 61.3%; operating margin 35.3% vs 41.7% — KLAC takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | Even | Value 28 vs 28 |
| Technicals | LRCX | Price vs 50-day -5.7% vs -9.8%; vs 200-day 13.1% vs -74% |
| Risk Resilience | KLAC | Risk Resilience 39 vs 46 |
| Analyst expectations | LRCX | Target upside 26.8% vs 24.1% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of LRCX and KLAC and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion is sensitive to small changes. Treat the lead as provisional and watch the flip conditions below.
- The AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Signal direction runs against the verdict: the leader is net-bearish while the laggard is net-bullish. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Analyst targets on the leader are widely dispersed. (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 KLAC.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10KLAC lead: Reversed — LRCX led by 2 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; KLAC now leads by 1.
- Today
- KLAC +1
- 52 vs 53
- 7 sessions ago
- Level
- 48 vs 48
- 30 sessions ago
- LRCX +2
- 56 vs 54
- 90 sessions ago
- LRCX +1
- 50 vs 49
The lead changed hands 8 times in this window, most recently on Sep 10 when KLAC moved ahead of LRCX.
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 (20.00%)
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (5.35%)
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (239.81%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (6.77%)
KLAC 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 +0.07%, AIQ -3 points).
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +1.95%, 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.
- 1LRCX closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 7 points behind, the largest single contributor to KLAC's edge.
- 2LRCX's ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3KLAC's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 2 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
KLAC leads on balance| Metric | LRCX | KLAC |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 15.1% | 7.1% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 24.7% | 13% |
| Gross margin | 50.5% | 61.3% |
| Operating margin | 35.3% | 41.7% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 67% | 85.4% |
| Debt to equity | 0.33 | 0.97 |
Performance
LRCX leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | LRCX | KLAC |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 3.4% | 2.9% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -8.6% | -14.9% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -7.4% | -91.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 36.2% | 20.9% |
| Year to date | 74.1% | 45.8% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 183.6% | 94.9% |
Technicals
LRCX has the stronger structure| Metric | LRCX | KLAC |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 44 | 41.2 |
| ADX (14) | 8.8 | 37.5 |
| Price vs 50-day | -5.7% | -9.8% |
| Price vs 200-day | 13.1% | -74% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 53.3% | 44.5% |
Risk
KLAC is the more resilient| Metric | LRCX | KLAC |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 3.27 | -5.84 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.88 | 0.98 |
| Sortino ratio | 3.08 | 6.18 |
| Max drawdown | -41.8% | -92.9% |
| Current drawdown | -31.2% | -92.7% |
| Annualized volatility | 64.4% | 870.6% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -6.1% | -6% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, LRCX or KLAC?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, KLAC is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 53 against LRCX's 52. The edge comes from risk resilience and momentum. LRCX 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 LRCX or KLAC the better buy right now?
KLAC carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor KLAC over LRCX?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. KLAC leads Risk Resilience by 7 points; KLAC leads Momentum by 6 points; LRCX leads Quality by 5 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, LRCX or KLAC?
Analyst price targets imply +26.8% upside for LRCX and +24.1% for KLAC, so the Street currently favors LRCX. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors KLAC. 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, LRCX or KLAC?
Neither name separates on the peer-relative Value factor. The two are level on Value. 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, LRCX or KLAC?
LRCX 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, LRCX or KLAC?
KLAC on the Momentum factor, by 6 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, LRCX or KLAC?
KLAC is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. KLAC on Risk Resilience, by 7 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 LRCX more profitable than KLAC?
KLAC leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 50.5% vs 61.3%; operating margin 35.3% vs 41.7%; ttm roe 67% vs 85.4%.
Is KLAC's lead over LRCX getting stronger or weaker?
KLAC lead: Reversed — LRCX led by 2 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; KLAC now leads by 1. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has changed hands 8 times in that window, most recently on 2026-09-10, when KLAC moved ahead of LRCX.
What would change the LRCX vs KLAC verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: LRCX closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 7 points behind, the largest single contributor to KLAC's edge; LRCX's ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; KLAC's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 2 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 LRCX and KLAC?
LRCX: 2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. KLAC: 1 bullish / 2 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 LRCX is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On KLAC it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare LRCX and KLAC 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.