LFST vs MCK Stock Comparison
Compare LFST and MCK across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between LFST and MCK?
LFST and MCK are close on the current AIQ evidence, so the better fit depends more on objective, risk tolerance and valuation preference than on a single headline score.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
LifeStance Health Group, Inc. vs McKesson Corporation
LFST and MCK are effectively level
LFST and MCK are effectively level on the AIQ Score; the factor table below shows where each one holds its advantage.
LifeStance Health Group, Inc.
McKesson Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score does not currently separate LFST and MCK as of Sep 11, 2026. Both names are scored on the same 0–100 scale across Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience, and the factor table below shows where each one holds its advantage.
Compare LifeStance Health Group, Inc. and McKesson 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 LFST and MCK 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.
- Value35 vs 58MCK +23
- Quality46 vs 32LFST +14
- Risk Resilience60 vs 49LFST +11
- Momentum68 vs 63LFST +5
Neither name separates cleanly on the covered dimensions.
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
New signals
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum -4
No new signals fired.
MCK's lead narrowed by 4 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — LFST and MCK 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
EvenNeither separates on the overall score.
Growth
LFSTLFST on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
MCKMCK on the peer-relative Value factor, by 23 points.
Momentum
LFSTLFST on the Momentum factor, by 5 points.
Lower downside
LFSTLFST on Risk Resilience, by 11 points.
Analyst upside
MCKMCK on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
Where the systematic read and the analyst consensus line up — and where they do not.
| Measure | LFST | MCK | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +4.1% | +8.1% | MCK has more room |
| Target dispersion | +74.1% | +21.5% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 7 | 6 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
How each independent group of evidence reads the pair.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | Even | 50 vs 50 |
| Fundamentals | LFSTon balance | revenue growth 7.9% vs 9.4%; EPS growth 50% vs -62.5%; TTM ROE 3.4% vs -194.4%; gross margin 33.6% vs 3.6%; operating margin 4.9% vs 1.6% — LFST takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | MCK | Value 35 vs 58 |
| Technicals | LFST | Price vs 50-day 11.7% vs 3.1%; vs 200-day 56% vs 4.4% |
| Risk Resilience | LFST | Risk Resilience 60 vs 49 |
| Analyst expectations | MCK | Target upside 4.1% vs 8.1% |
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 0 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 1 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10LFST lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 6 to 0 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- Level
- 50 vs 50
- 7 sessions ago
- MCK +6
- 48 vs 54
- 30 sessions ago
- LFST +6
- 51 vs 45
- 90 sessions ago
- MCK +2
- 52 vs 54
The lead changed hands 7 times in this window, most recently on Sep 1 when MCK moved ahead of LFST.
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 / 2 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (39.36%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
3 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (1.35%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
Price vs model alignment
Whether the latest session's price move confirms what the model did over the same session, or contradicts it.
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 3 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -0.23%, AIQ +3 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.07%, AIQ -1 points).
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
LFST leads on balance| Metric | LFST | MCK |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 7.9% | 9.4% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 50% | -62.5% |
| Gross margin | 33.6% | 3.6% |
| Operating margin | 4.9% | 1.6% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 3.4% | -194.4% |
| Debt to equity | 0.14 | -2.76 |
Performance
LFST leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | LFST | MCK |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 0.9% | -4.7% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 6.3% | 0.2% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 65.4% | 11.4% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 87.5% | -5.7% |
| Year to date | 82.2% | 7.4% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 131.7% | 26.4% |
Technicals
LFST has the stronger structure| Metric | LFST | MCK |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 57.7 | 61.7 |
| ADX (14) | 35.1 | 20.7 |
| Price vs 50-day | 11.7% | 3.1% |
| Price vs 200-day | 56% | 4.4% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 26.7% | 27.9% |
Risk
LFST is the more resilient| Metric | LFST | MCK |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.66 | -0.27 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.8 | 0.74 |
| Sortino ratio | 3.4 | 1.28 |
| Max drawdown | -17.1% | -27.2% |
| Current drawdown | 0% | -11.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 53.5% | 31.3% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.4% | -2.7% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which has more analyst upside, LFST or MCK?
Analyst price targets imply +4.1% upside for LFST and +8.1% for MCK, so the Street currently favors MCK. Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions, and dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Which is better value, LFST or MCK?
MCK is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. MCK on the peer-relative Value factor, by 23 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, LFST or MCK?
LFST 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, LFST or MCK?
LFST on the Momentum factor, by 5 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, LFST or MCK?
LFST is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. LFST on Risk Resilience, by 11 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 LFST more profitable than MCK?
LFST leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 33.6% vs 3.6%; operating margin 4.9% vs 1.6%; ttm roe 3.4% vs -194.4%.
What do the current signals say about LFST and MCK?
LFST: 4 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted. MCK: 3 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 LFST is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On MCK it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare LFST and MCK 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.