LH vs PGNY Stock Comparison
Compare LH and PGNY across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between LH and PGNY?
PGNY leads the current stock comparison as Progyny, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Labcorp Holdings Inc. vs Progyny, Inc.
PGNY leads
PGNY leads by 13 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Quality, having only recently taken the lead back from LH.
Competitive: 4 of 6 evidence groups support PGNY, the lead recently changed hands, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Labcorp Holdings Inc.
Progyny, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors PGNY over LH, 57 versus 44 as of Sep 11, 2026. PGNY's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and quality, while LH holds the stronger value profile. PGNY also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor PGNY today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. PGNY lead: Reversed — LH led by 7 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; PGNY now leads by 13.
Compare Labcorp Holdings Inc. and Progyny, 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 LH and PGNY 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.
- Momentum18 vs 58PGNY +40
- Quality42 vs 56PGNY +14
- Value59 vs 51LH +8
- Risk Resilience64 vs 70PGNY +6
4 of 6 evidence groups favor PGNY. PGNY’s edge is concentrated in momentum and quality; LH 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.
Largest factor move: Momentum -23
New signals
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum -3
No new signals fired.
PGNY's lead widened by 6 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — LH and PGNY both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
PGNY (Progyny, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and quality.
LH (Labcorp Holdings Inc.): the counter-case, on value, valuation, technicals.
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
PGNYPGNY on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
PGNYPGNY on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
LHLH on the peer-relative Value factor, by 8 points.
Momentum
PGNYPGNY on the Momentum factor, by 40 points.
Lower downside
PGNYPGNY on Risk Resilience, by 6 points.
Analyst upside
PGNYPGNY 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 | LH | PGNY | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +5.7% | +25.6% | PGNY has more room |
| Target dispersion | +16.7% | +37.8% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 6 | 7 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor PGNY. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | PGNY | 44 vs 57 |
| Fundamentals | PGNYon balance | revenue growth 5.5% vs 6.7%; EPS growth 8.6% vs 20%; TTM ROE 11.6% vs 16%; gross margin 27.8% vs 24.6%; operating margin 11.3% vs 8.6% — PGNY takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | LH | Value 59 vs 51 |
| Technicals | LH | Price vs 50-day 0.8% vs -5.1%; vs 200-day 11% vs 12.2% |
| Risk Resilience | PGNY | Risk Resilience 64 vs 70 |
| Analyst expectations | PGNY | Target upside 5.7% vs 25.6% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of LH and PGNY and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
- The AIQ gap is wide at 13 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's signal state is cleanly positive. (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 PGNY.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10PGNY lead: Reversed — LH led by 7 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; PGNY now leads by 13.
- Today
- PGNY +13
- 44 vs 57
- 7 sessions ago
- PGNY +1
- 55 vs 56
- 30 sessions ago
- LH +7
- 58 vs 51
- 90 sessions ago
- PGNY +3
- 62 vs 65
The lead changed hands 4 times in this window, most recently on Sep 4 when PGNY moved ahead of LH.
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 / 2 bearish, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (11.77%)
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (19.42%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
LH 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.
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 7 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +1.49%, AIQ -7 points).
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +1%, 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.
- 1LH closes the Momentum gap — currently 40 points behind, the largest single contributor to PGNY's edge.
- 2LH's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3PGNY's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict.
- 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
PGNY leads on balance| Metric | LH | PGNY |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 5.5% | 6.7% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 8.6% | 20% |
| Gross margin | 27.8% | 24.6% |
| Operating margin | 11.3% | 8.6% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 11.6% | 16% |
| Debt to equity | 0.79 | 0.06 |
Performance
PGNY leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | LH | PGNY |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -7.4% | 3% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -5.1% | 6.5% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 14.3% | 4.6% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 13.5% | 51.1% |
| Year to date | 22.4% | 5.5% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 10.7% | 18.5% |
Technicals
LH has the stronger structure| Metric | LH | PGNY |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 23.5 | 60.3 |
| ADX (14) | 23.8 | 35.9 |
| Price vs 50-day | 0.8% | -5.1% |
| Price vs 200-day | 11% | 12.2% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 23.3% | 31.1% |
Risk
PGNY is the more resilient| Metric | LH | PGNY |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.26 | 0.37 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.37 | 0.5 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.53 | 0.71 |
| Max drawdown | -15.2% | -42.6% |
| Current drawdown | -9.5% | -16.3% |
| Annualized volatility | 24.1% | 55.3% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.1% | -4% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, LH or PGNY?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, PGNY is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 57 against LH's 44. The edge comes from momentum and quality. LH 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 LH or PGNY the better buy right now?
PGNY carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 4 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Competitive rating means the two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
Why does the AIQ Score favor PGNY over LH?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. PGNY leads Momentum by 40 points; PGNY leads Quality by 14 points; LH leads Value by 8 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, LH or PGNY?
Analyst price targets imply +5.7% upside for LH and +25.6% for PGNY, so the Street currently favors PGNY. 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, LH or PGNY?
LH is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. LH 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, LH or PGNY?
PGNY 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, LH or PGNY?
PGNY on the Momentum factor, by 40 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, LH or PGNY?
PGNY is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. PGNY on Risk Resilience, by 6 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 LH more profitable than PGNY?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 27.8% vs 24.6%; operating margin 11.3% vs 8.6%; ttm roe 11.6% vs 16%. LH leads on two measures and PGNY on one measure, 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 PGNY's lead over LH getting stronger or weaker?
PGNY lead: Reversed — LH led by 7 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; PGNY now leads by 13. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has changed hands 4 times in that window, most recently on 2026-09-04, when PGNY moved ahead of LH.
What would change the LH vs PGNY verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: LH closes the Momentum gap — currently 40 points behind, the largest single contributor to PGNY's edge; LH's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it; PGNY's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict; 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 LH and PGNY?
LH: 4 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted. PGNY: 2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. 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 LH is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On PGNY it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare LH and PGNY 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.