L vs ONB Stock Comparison
Loews Corporation vs Old National Bancorp
ONB leads
ONB leads by 1 AIQ points, but the lead has narrowed from 11 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 2 of 5 evidence groups support ONB, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Loews Corporation
Old National Bancorp
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors ONB over L, 53 versus 52 as of Sep 5, 2026. ONB also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 5 covered evidence groups favor ONB today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. ONB lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 11 to 1 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Loews Corporation and Old National Bancorp across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Compare L and ONB 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%54 vs 56Even
- Value30%58 vs 59Even
- Risk Resilience15%62 vs 63Even
- Momentum25%35 vs 35Even
2 of 5 evidence groups favor ONB. Neither name separates cleanly on the covered dimensions.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-04, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-03.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum +3
No new signals fired.
ONB's lead widened by 1 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — L and ONB both carry a full feed there.
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
ONBONB on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
LL on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
LL carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
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 | L | ONB | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | — | +9.7% | Level |
| Target dispersion | — | +24.5% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 4 | 6 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
2 of 5 covered evidence groups favor ONB. 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 | ONBon balance | EPS growth 32.5% vs 11.7%; TTM ROE 10.3% vs 10.5%; gross margin 47% vs 66.8%; operating margin 16.6% vs 28.7% — ONB takes 2 of 3 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | Even | Value 58 vs 59 |
| Technicals | ONB | Price vs 50-day -3.9% vs -1.1%; vs 200-day 0.4% vs 8% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 62 vs 63 |
| 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 L and ONB 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 5 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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 ONB.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 23 – Sep 4ONB lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 11 to 1 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- ONB +1
- 52 vs 53
- 7 sessions ago
- ONB +1
- 51 vs 52
- 30 sessions ago
- ONB +11
- 50 vs 61
- 90 sessions ago
- Level
- 63 vs 63
The lead changed hands 4 times in this window, most recently on Jul 24 when L moved ahead of ONB.
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.
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
1 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (9.20%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
ONB 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 -0.67%, AIQ 0 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.23%, 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.
- 1L's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 2ONB's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 3The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 10 points over 30 sessions, and a further 1-point move would eliminate ONB's advantage entirely.
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
ONB leads on balance| Metric | L | ONB |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 3.9% | 0.5% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 32.5% | 11.7% |
| Gross margin | 47% | 66.8% |
| Operating margin | 16.6% | 28.7% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 10.3% | 10.5% |
| Debt to equity | 0.47 | 0.98 |
Performance
ONB leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | L | ONB |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -0.4% | 0.7% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -5.4% | -2% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 1.6% | 8.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -0.3% | 16.7% |
| Year to date | 3.8% | 16.7% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 12.8% | 14.4% |
Technicals
ONB has the stronger structure| Metric | L | ONB |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 35 | 33.5 |
| ADX (14) | 23.1 | 21.1 |
| Price vs 50-day | -3.9% | -1.1% |
| Price vs 200-day | 0.4% | 8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 11.9% | 17% |
Risk
Split| Metric | L | ONB |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0 | 0.8 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.54 | 0.43 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.73 | 0.57 |
| Max drawdown | -9.3% | -18.2% |
| Current drawdown | -8.5% | -4.6% |
| Annualized volatility | 16.3% | 26.3% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.6% | -2.6% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, L or ONB?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, ONB is the stronger of the two as of Sep 5, 2026, scoring 53 against L's 52. The edge comes from its factor profile. 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 L or ONB the better buy right now?
ONB carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 5, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 2 of 5 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 ONB over L?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. . Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, L or ONB?
Analyst price targets imply not covered upside for L and +9.7% for ONB. 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, L or ONB?
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, L or ONB?
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, L or ONB?
The two are level on Momentum. 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, L or ONB?
L is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. L carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility. The Risk Resilience factor weights 15% of the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is L more profitable than ONB?
ONB leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 47% vs 66.8%; operating margin 16.6% vs 28.7%; ttm roe 10.3% vs 10.5%.
Is ONB's lead over L getting stronger or weaker?
ONB lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 11 to 1 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 4 times in that window, most recently on 2026-07-24, when L moved ahead of ONB.
What would change the L vs ONB verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: L's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it; ONB's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 10 points over 30 sessions, and a further 1-point move would eliminate ONB's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about L and ONB?
L: 1 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. ONB: 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 L is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On ONB it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare L and ONB 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.