LC vs OPEN Stock Comparison
Compare LC and OPEN across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between LC and OPEN?
LC leads the current stock comparison as LendingClub Corporation, with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
LendingClub Corporation vs Opendoor Technologies Inc.
LC leads
LC leads by 24 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Risk Resilience, and the lead has widened from 19 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors OPEN on target upside.
Stable: 4 of 6 evidence groups support LC, and its lead is widening.
LendingClub Corporation
Opendoor Technologies Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors LC over OPEN, 65 versus 41 as of Sep 11, 2026. LC's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and risk resilience, while OPEN holds the stronger value profile. LC also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors OPEN. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor LC today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability. LC lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 19 to 24 points over 30 sessions.
Compare LendingClub Corporation and Opendoor Technologies Inc. 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 LC and OPEN 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.
- Quality73 vs 31LC +42
- Risk Resilience67 vs 39LC +28
- Value57 vs 65OPEN +8
4 of 6 evidence groups favor LC. LC’s edge is concentrated in quality and risk resilience; OPEN keeps a meaningful value edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-10, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-09.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
No factor moved materially.
New signals
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
LC's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — LC and OPEN both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
LC (LendingClub Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and risk resilience.
OPEN (Opendoor Technologies Inc.): the counter-case, on value, valuation, 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
LCLC on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
OPENOPEN on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
OPENOPEN on the peer-relative Value factor, by 8 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
LCLC on Risk Resilience, by 28 points.
Analyst upside
OPENOPEN on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors LC, analyst targets favor OPEN. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | LC | OPEN | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +17.1% | +112.2% | OPEN has more room |
| Target dispersion | 0% | +63.3% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Strong Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 1 | 3 | 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 LC. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | LC | 65 vs 41 |
| Fundamentals | LCon balance | revenue growth 3% vs 22.6%; EPS growth 11.1% vs 5.6%; TTM ROE 12.9% vs -165.1%; gross margin 71.1% vs 8.3%; operating margin 18.2% vs -16% — LC takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | OPEN | Value 57 vs 65 |
| Technicals | LC | Price vs 50-day 13.7% vs -27.8%; vs 200-day 12.9% vs -40.8% |
| Risk Resilience | LC | Risk Resilience 67 vs 39 |
| Analyst expectations | OPEN | Target upside 17.1% vs 112.2% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of LC and OPEN 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 24 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (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 LC.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10LC lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 19 to 24 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- LC +24
- 65 vs 41
- 7 sessions ago
- LC +24
- 66 vs 42
- 30 sessions ago
- LC +19
- 63 vs 44
- 90 sessions ago
- LC +14
- 63 vs 49
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.
No active signals
2 bullish / 5 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (29.64%)
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
OPEN 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.
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -0.36%, 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.
- 1OPEN closes the Quality gap — currently 42 points behind, the largest single contributor to LC's edge.
- 2OPEN's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3LC starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals.
- 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
LC leads on balance| Metric | LC | OPEN |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 3% | 22.6% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 11.1% | 5.6% |
| Gross margin | 71.1% | 8.3% |
| Operating margin | 18.2% | -16% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 12.9% | -165.1% |
| Debt to equity | 0.01 | 0.21 |
Performance
LC leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | LC | OPEN |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 5.3% | -9.4% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 21% | -19.8% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 38.7% | -37.5% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 1.2% | -46.9% |
| Year to date | 1.4% | -47.3% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 74% | -52.1% |
Technicals
LC has the stronger structure| Metric | LC | OPEN |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 58.6 | 25.2 |
| ADX (14) | 31.1 | 31.4 |
| Price vs 50-day | 13.7% | -27.8% |
| Price vs 200-day | 12.9% | -40.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 55.5% | 57.6% |
Risk
LC is the more resilient| Metric | LC | OPEN |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.32 | 3.26 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.63 | -0.17 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.88 | -0.4 |
| Max drawdown | -38.3% | -72.5% |
| Current drawdown | -11% | -72.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 54.3% | 118.3% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -5.8% | -8.7% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, LC or OPEN?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, LC is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 65 against OPEN's 41. The edge comes from quality and risk resilience. OPEN 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 LC or OPEN the better buy right now?
LC carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Stable — 4 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 LC over OPEN?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. LC leads Quality by 42 points; LC leads Risk Resilience by 28 points; OPEN leads Value by 8 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, LC or OPEN?
Analyst price targets imply +17.1% upside for LC and +112.2% for OPEN, so the Street currently favors OPEN. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors LC. 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, LC or OPEN?
OPEN is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. OPEN 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, LC or OPEN?
OPEN 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, LC or OPEN?
The two are level on Momentum. 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, LC or OPEN?
LC is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. LC on Risk Resilience, by 28 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 LC more profitable than OPEN?
LC leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 71.1% vs 8.3%; operating margin 18.2% vs -16%; ttm roe 12.9% vs -165.1%.
Is LC's lead over OPEN getting stronger or weaker?
LC lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 19 to 24 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 LC vs OPEN verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: OPEN closes the Quality gap — currently 42 points behind, the largest single contributor to LC's edge; OPEN's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; LC starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals; 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 LC and OPEN?
LC: No active signals. OPEN: 2 bullish / 5 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. On OPEN it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare LC and OPEN 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.