LEA vs VC Stock Comparison
Compare LEA and VC across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between LEA and VC?
LEA leads the current stock comparison as Lear Corporation, with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Lear Corporation vs Visteon Corporation
LEA leads
LEA leads by 10 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Value, having only recently taken the lead back from VC. Wall Street currently favors VC on target upside.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support LEA, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Lear Corporation
Visteon Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors LEA over VC, 61 versus 51 as of Sep 6, 2026. LEA's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and value, while VC holds the stronger quality profile. LEA also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors VC. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor LEA today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. LEA lead: Reversed — VC led by 16 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; LEA now leads by 10.
Compare Lear Corporation and Visteon 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 LEA and VC 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.
- Momentum25%83 vs 35LEA +48
- Quality30%34 vs 41VC +7
- Risk Resilience15%59 vs 65VC +6
- Value30%71 vs 66LEA +5
3 of 6 evidence groups favor LEA. LEA’s edge is concentrated in momentum and value; VC keeps a meaningful quality edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-05, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-04.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
LEA's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — LEA and VC both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
LEA (Lear Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and value.
VC (Visteon Corporation): the counter-case, on quality, risk resilience, fundamentals.
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
LEALEA on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
VCVC on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
LEALEA on the peer-relative Value factor, by 5 points.
Momentum
LEALEA on the Momentum factor, by 48 points.
Lower downside
VCVC on Risk Resilience, by 6 points.
Analyst upside
VCVC on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors LEA, analyst targets favor VC. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | LEA | VC | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +0.4% | +22.2% | VC has more room |
| Target dispersion | +29.6% | +15.9% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 6 | 7 | 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
3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor LEA. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | LEA | 61 vs 51 |
| Fundamentals | VCon balance | EPS growth 10.9% vs 57.8%; TTM ROE 10.9% vs 9.7%; gross margin 7% vs 12.8%; operating margin 4.1% vs 7.4% — VC takes 3 of 4 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | LEA | Value 71 vs 66 |
| Technicals | LEA | Price vs 50-day 2.3% vs -1.4%; vs 200-day 6% vs 0.3% |
| Risk Resilience | VC | Risk Resilience 59 vs 65 |
| Analyst expectations | VC | Target upside 0.4% vs 22.2% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of LEA and VC 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 moderate at 10 points.
- Only 3 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 swung materially session to session. (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 LEA.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 24 – Sep 5LEA lead: Reversed — VC led by 16 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; LEA now leads by 10.
- Today
- LEA +10
- 61 vs 51
- 7 sessions ago
- LEA +4
- 53 vs 49
- 30 sessions ago
- VC +16
- 44 vs 60
- 90 sessions ago
- LEA +3
- 47 vs 44
The lead changed hands 8 times in this window, most recently on Jul 31 when VC moved ahead of LEA.
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.
4 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (3.58%)
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
1 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (1.73%)
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
LEA 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 +2.77%, AIQ 0 points).
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.
- 1VC closes the Momentum gap — currently 48 points behind, the largest single contributor to LEA's edge.
- 2VC's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 3LEA's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 4 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4A regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, 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
VC leads on balance| Metric | LEA | VC |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 6.6% | 0.6% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 10.9% | 57.8% |
| Gross margin | 7% | 12.8% |
| Operating margin | 4.1% | 7.4% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 10.9% | 9.7% |
| Debt to equity | 0.68 | 0.27 |
Performance
LEA leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | LEA | VC |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 8.6% | 0.6% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 9.6% | -1.4% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -4.8% | -12.6% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 12.1% | 13.6% |
| Year to date | 17.5% | 7.9% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 24.2% | -16.4% |
Technicals
LEA has the stronger structure| Metric | LEA | VC |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 69.8 | 34.3 |
| ADX (14) | 24.5 | 12.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | 2.3% | -1.4% |
| Price vs 200-day | 6% | 0.3% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 27% | 22.1% |
Risk
VC is the more resilient| Metric | LEA | VC |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.99 | 1.06 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.64 | -0.43 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.03 | -0.65 |
| Max drawdown | -19.9% | -34.4% |
| Current drawdown | -9.4% | -20.3% |
| Annualized volatility | 33.9% | 38.8% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.9% | -3.5% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, LEA or VC?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, LEA is the stronger of the two as of Sep 6, 2026, scoring 61 against VC's 51. The edge comes from momentum and value. VC 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 LEA or VC the better buy right now?
LEA carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 6, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor LEA over VC?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. LEA leads Momentum by 48 points; VC leads Quality by 7 points; VC leads Risk Resilience by 6 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, LEA or VC?
Analyst price targets imply +0.4% upside for LEA and +22.2% for VC, so the Street currently favors VC. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors LEA. 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, LEA or VC?
LEA is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. LEA on the peer-relative Value factor, by 5 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, LEA or VC?
VC 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, LEA or VC?
LEA on the Momentum factor, by 48 points. 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, LEA or VC?
VC is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. VC on Risk Resilience, by 6 points. The Risk Resilience factor weights 15% of the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is LEA more profitable than VC?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 7% vs 12.8%; operating margin 4.1% vs 7.4%; ttm roe 10.9% vs 9.7%. LEA leads on one measure and VC on two measures, and there is no single profitability composite that resolves the split — which of the two reads as "more profitable" depends on whether you weight pricing power or operating leverage.
Is LEA's lead over VC getting stronger or weaker?
LEA lead: Reversed — VC led by 16 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; LEA now leads by 10. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-24 and 2026-09-05. The lead has changed hands 8 times in that window, most recently on 2026-07-31, when VC moved ahead of LEA.
What would change the LEA vs VC verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: VC closes the Momentum gap — currently 48 points behind, the largest single contributor to LEA's edge; VC's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it; LEA's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 4 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; a regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
What do the current signals say about LEA and VC?
LEA: 4 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. VC: 1 bullish / 1 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 LEA is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On VC it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare LEA and VC 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.