LHX vs MRCY Stock Comparison
Compare LHX and MRCY across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between LHX and MRCY?
LHX leads the current stock comparison as L3Harris Technologies, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
L3Harris Technologies, Inc. vs Mercury Systems, Inc.
LHX leads
LHX leads by 12 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Quality. Wall Street currently favors MRCY on target upside.
Competitive: 2 of 6 evidence groups support LHX, and its current signal state is conflicted.
L3Harris Technologies, Inc.
Mercury Systems, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors LHX over MRCY, 45 versus 33 as of Sep 11, 2026. LHX's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and quality. LHX also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors MRCY. 2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor LHX today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: only 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. LHX lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 12 points over 30 sessions.
Compare L3Harris Technologies, Inc. and Mercury Systems, 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 LHX and MRCY 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.
- Value58 vs 27LHX +31
- Quality43 vs 37LHX +6
- Risk Resilience60 vs 57Even
- Momentum21 vs 21Even
2 of 6 evidence groups favor LHX. LHX’s edge is concentrated in value and quality.
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 -1
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum +1
No new signals fired.
LHX's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — LHX and MRCY both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
LHX (L3Harris Technologies, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and quality.
MRCY (Mercury Systems, Inc.): the counter-case, on fundamentals, technicals, analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 45.5% against 21.7%.
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
LHXLHX on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
MRCYMRCY on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
LHXLHX on the peer-relative Value factor, by 31 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
LHXLHX carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
MRCYMRCY on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors LHX, analyst targets favor MRCY. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | LHX | MRCY | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +28.3% | +40.3% | MRCY has more room |
| Target dispersion | 0% | +55.7% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 1 | 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
2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor LHX. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | LHX | 45 vs 33 |
| Fundamentals | MRCYon balance | revenue growth 2.4% vs 22.9%; EPS growth 15% vs 127.8%; TTM ROE 9.4% vs -2%; gross margin 25.5% vs 26.7% — MRCY takes 3 of 4 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | LHX | Value 58 vs 27 |
| Technicals | MRCY | Price vs 50-day -12.4% vs -19.6%; vs 200-day -20% vs -10.8% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 60 vs 57 |
| Analyst expectations | MRCY | Target upside 28.3% vs 40.3% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of LHX and MRCY 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 12 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- Only 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 LHX.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10LHX lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 12 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- LHX +12
- 45 vs 33
- 7 sessions ago
- LHX +13
- 45 vs 32
- 30 sessions ago
- LHX +12
- 52 vs 40
- 90 sessions ago
- LHX +9
- 51 vs 42
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.
1 bullish / 5 bearish, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (11.86%)
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
2 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (10.42%)
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
LHX 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 -1.14%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.22%, 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.
- 1MRCY closes the Value gap — currently 31 points behind, the largest single contributor to LHX's edge.
- 2MRCY's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3LHX's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 5 bearish rules at once.
- 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
MRCY leads on balance| Metric | LHX | MRCY |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 2.4% | 22.9% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 15% | 127.8% |
| Gross margin | 25.5% | 26.7% |
| Operating margin | 10% | 0.5% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 9.4% | -2% |
| Debt to equity | 0.53 | 0.33 |
Performance
MRCY leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | LHX | MRCY |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -5% | -2.6% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -14.6% | -26% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -18% | -24.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -30.8% | -6.5% |
| Year to date | -12.5% | 10.2% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -8.6% | 17.1% |
Technicals
MRCY has the stronger structure| Metric | LHX | MRCY |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 17.4 | 23.1 |
| ADX (14) | 36 | 29 |
| Price vs 50-day | -12.4% | -19.6% |
| Price vs 200-day | -20% | -10.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 21.7% | 45.5% |
Risk
Split| Metric | LHX | MRCY |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.32 | 2.31 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.29 | 0.5 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.44 | 0.68 |
| Max drawdown | -34.4% | -36.3% |
| Current drawdown | -34.4% | -36.3% |
| Annualized volatility | 28.7% | 58% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.7% | -5.3% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, LHX or MRCY?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, LHX is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 45 against MRCY's 33. The edge comes from value and quality. 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 LHX or MRCY the better buy right now?
LHX carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 2 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 LHX over MRCY?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. LHX leads Value by 31 points; LHX leads Quality by 6 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, LHX or MRCY?
Analyst price targets imply +28.3% upside for LHX and +40.3% for MRCY, so the Street currently favors MRCY. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors LHX. 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, LHX or MRCY?
LHX is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. LHX on the peer-relative Value factor, by 31 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, LHX or MRCY?
MRCY 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, LHX or MRCY?
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, LHX or MRCY?
LHX is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. LHX carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility. Risk Resilience is a weighted factor in the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is LHX more profitable than MRCY?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 25.5% vs 26.7%; operating margin 10% vs 0.5%; ttm roe 9.4% vs -2%. Each name leads 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 LHX's lead over MRCY getting stronger or weaker?
LHX lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 12 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 LHX vs MRCY verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: MRCY closes the Value gap — currently 31 points behind, the largest single contributor to LHX's edge; MRCY's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it; LHX's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 5 bearish rules at once; 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 LHX and MRCY?
LHX: 1 bullish / 5 bearish, conflicted. MRCY: 2 bullish / 2 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 LHX is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On MRCY it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare LHX and MRCY 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.