LIN vs LYB Stock Comparison
Compare LIN and LYB across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between LIN and LYB?
LIN leads the current stock comparison as Linde plc, with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Linde plc vs LyondellBasell Industries N.V.
LIN leads
LIN leads by 4 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Risk Resilience, and the lead has widened from 0 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 4 of 6 evidence groups support LIN, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Linde plc
LyondellBasell Industries N.V.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors LIN over LYB, 42 versus 38 as of Sep 11, 2026. LIN's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and risk resilience, while LYB holds the stronger momentum profile. LIN also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor LIN today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 4 points. LIN lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 0 to 4 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Linde plc and LyondellBasell Industries N.V. 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 LIN and LYB 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.
- Quality59 vs 16LIN +43
- Momentum21 vs 50LYB +29
- Risk Resilience62 vs 46LIN +16
- Value34 vs 47LYB +13
4 of 6 evidence groups favor LIN. LIN’s edge is concentrated in quality and risk resilience; LYB keeps a meaningful momentum 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 -5
New signals
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum -7
No new signals fired.
LIN's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — LIN and LYB both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
LIN (Linde plc): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and risk resilience.
LYB (LyondellBasell Industries N.V.): the counter-case, on momentum, value, valuation — but at materially higher volatility, 31.1% against 14.7%.
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
LINLIN on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
LYBLYB on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
LYBLYB on the peer-relative Value factor, by 13 points.
Momentum
LYBLYB on the Momentum factor, by 29 points.
Lower downside
LINLIN on Risk Resilience, by 16 points.
Analyst upside
LINLIN 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 | LIN | LYB | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +21.8% | +20.2% | LIN has more room |
| Target dispersion | +15.3% | +49.6% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 8 | 8 | 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 LIN. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | LIN | 42 vs 38 |
| Fundamentals | LINon balance | revenue growth 5.8% vs 27.5%; EPS growth 4.2% vs 3.5%; TTM ROE 18.9% vs -3.4%; gross margin 45.6% vs 13.2%; operating margin 28.7% vs 3.2% — LIN takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | LYB | Value 34 vs 47 |
| Technicals | LYB | Price vs 50-day -6.5% vs 3.9%; vs 200-day -2.9% vs 5.7% |
| Risk Resilience | LIN | Risk Resilience 62 vs 46 |
| Analyst expectations | LIN | Target upside 21.8% vs 20.2% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of LIN and LYB 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 narrow at 4 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 LIN.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10LIN lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 0 to 4 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- LIN +4
- 42 vs 38
- 7 sessions ago
- LIN +9
- 49 vs 40
- 30 sessions ago
- Level
- 44 vs 44
- 90 sessions ago
- LIN +24
- 56 vs 32
The lead changed hands 5 times in this window, most recently on Aug 5 when LIN moved ahead of LYB.
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.
2 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (3.57%)
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
3 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (0.76%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
LIN 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.
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 2 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +1%, AIQ -2 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved down over the latest session (price -0.95%, AIQ -2 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.
- 1LYB closes the Quality gap — currently 43 points behind, the largest single contributor to LIN's edge.
- 2LYB's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3LIN's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 2 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
LIN leads on balance| Metric | LIN | LYB |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 5.8% | 27.5% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 4.2% | 3.5% |
| Gross margin | 45.6% | 13.2% |
| Operating margin | 28.7% | 3.2% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 18.9% | -3.4% |
| Debt to equity | 0.72 | 1.33 |
Performance
LYB leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | LIN | LYB |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -5.3% | -3.4% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -3.7% | 2.4% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -9.3% | -1.3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -4.1% | -4.6% |
| Year to date | 8.3% | 48.5% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -1.7% | 17.7% |
Technicals
LYB has the stronger structure| Metric | LIN | LYB |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 31.5 | 36.4 |
| ADX (14) | 22.7 | 19.5 |
| Price vs 50-day | -6.5% | 3.9% |
| Price vs 200-day | -2.9% | 5.7% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 14.7% | 31.1% |
Risk
LIN is the more resilient| Metric | LIN | LYB |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.09 | -0.35 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.24 | 0.51 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.36 | 0.82 |
| Max drawdown | -19.5% | -36.2% |
| Current drawdown | -15.6% | -21.9% |
| Annualized volatility | 19.2% | 43.1% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.9% | -3.8% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, LIN or LYB?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, LIN is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 42 against LYB's 38. The edge comes from quality and risk resilience. LYB is not without a case — it holds the better momentum 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 LIN or LYB the better buy right now?
LIN carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 4 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 4 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor LIN over LYB?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. LIN leads Quality by 43 points; LYB leads Momentum by 29 points; LIN leads Risk Resilience by 16 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, LIN or LYB?
Analyst price targets imply +21.8% upside for LIN and +20.2% for LYB, so the Street currently favors LIN. 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, LIN or LYB?
LYB is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. LYB on the peer-relative Value factor, by 13 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, LIN or LYB?
LYB 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, LIN or LYB?
LYB on the Momentum factor, by 29 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, LIN or LYB?
LIN is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. LIN on Risk Resilience, by 16 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 LIN more profitable than LYB?
LIN leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 45.6% vs 13.2%; operating margin 28.7% vs 3.2%; ttm roe 18.9% vs -3.4%.
Is LIN's lead over LYB getting stronger or weaker?
LIN lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 0 to 4 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has changed hands 5 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-05, when LIN moved ahead of LYB.
What would change the LIN vs LYB verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: LYB closes the Quality gap — currently 43 points behind, the largest single contributor to LIN's edge; LYB's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; LIN's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 2 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 LIN and LYB?
LIN: 2 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted. LYB: 3 bullish / 1 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 LIN is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On LYB it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare LIN and LYB 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.