LIN vs MOS Stock Comparison
Compare LIN and MOS across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between LIN and MOS?
MOS leads the current stock comparison as The Mosaic Company, with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Linde plc vs The Mosaic Company
MOS leads
MOS leads by 12 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Value, and the lead has widened from 5 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors LIN on target upside.
Competitive: 3 of 6 evidence groups support MOS, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Linde plc
The Mosaic Company
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors MOS over LIN, 54 versus 42 as of Sep 11, 2026. MOS's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and value, while LIN holds the stronger quality profile. MOS also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors LIN. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor MOS today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. MOS lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 5 to 12 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Linde plc and The Mosaic Company 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 MOS 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.
- Momentum21 vs 74MOS +53
- Value34 vs 66MOS +32
- Quality59 vs 28LIN +31
- Risk Resilience62 vs 48LIN +14
3 of 6 evidence groups favor MOS. MOS’s edge is concentrated in momentum and value; LIN keeps a meaningful quality 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 -5
No new signals fired.
MOS's lead widened by 1 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — LIN and MOS both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
MOS (The Mosaic Company): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and value.
LIN (Linde plc): 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
MOSMOS on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
LINLIN on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
MOSMOS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 32 points.
Momentum
MOSMOS on the Momentum factor, by 53 points.
Lower downside
LINLIN on Risk Resilience, by 14 points.
Analyst upside
LINLIN on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors MOS, analyst targets favor LIN. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | LIN | MOS | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +21.8% | +6% | LIN has more room |
| Target dispersion | +15.3% | +41.2% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 8 | 9 | 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 MOS. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | MOS | 42 vs 54 |
| Fundamentals | LIN | revenue growth 5.8% vs -5.8%; EPS growth 4.2% vs -8.9%; gross margin 45.6% vs 11.5%; operating margin 28.7% vs 1.4% |
| Valuation | MOS | Value 34 vs 66 |
| Technicals | MOS | Price vs 50-day -6.5% vs 9.7%; vs 200-day -2.9% vs 3.5% |
| Risk Resilience | LIN | Risk Resilience 62 vs 48 |
| Analyst expectations | LIN | Target upside 21.8% vs 6% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of LIN and MOS 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 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (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 MOS.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10MOS lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 5 to 12 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- MOS +12
- 42 vs 54
- 7 sessions ago
- MOS +6
- 49 vs 55
- 30 sessions ago
- MOS +5
- 44 vs 49
- 90 sessions ago
- LIN +12
- 56 vs 44
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on Jun 3 when LIN moved ahead of MOS.
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
1 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (6.84%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (4.25%)
MOS 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 -0.83%, 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.
- 1LIN closes the Momentum gap — currently 53 points behind, the largest single contributor to MOS's edge.
- 2LIN's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3MOS's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 1 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 | MOS |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 5.8% | -5.8% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 4.2% | -8.9% |
| Gross margin | 45.6% | 11.5% |
| Operating margin | 28.7% | 1.4% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 18.9% | 0.4% |
| Debt to equity | 0.72 | 0.51 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | LIN | MOS |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -5.3% | -1.5% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -3.7% | 12.4% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -9.3% | 23.8% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -4.1% | -12.9% |
| Year to date | 8.3% | 5.4% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -1.7% | -22% |
Technicals
MOS has the stronger structure| Metric | LIN | MOS |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 31.5 | 64.5 |
| ADX (14) | 22.7 | 29 |
| Price vs 50-day | -6.5% | 9.7% |
| Price vs 200-day | -2.9% | 3.5% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 14.7% | 43% |
Risk
LIN is the more resilient| Metric | LIN | MOS |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.09 | 0.76 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.24 | -0.39 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.36 | -0.6 |
| Max drawdown | -19.5% | -44.8% |
| Current drawdown | -15.6% | -29.3% |
| Annualized volatility | 19.2% | 45% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.9% | -4.8% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, LIN or MOS?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, MOS is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 54 against LIN's 42. The edge comes from momentum and value. LIN 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 LIN or MOS the better buy right now?
MOS carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 3 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 MOS over LIN?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. MOS leads Momentum by 53 points; MOS leads Value by 32 points; LIN leads Quality by 31 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, LIN or MOS?
Analyst price targets imply +21.8% upside for LIN and +6% for MOS, so the Street currently favors LIN. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors MOS. 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, LIN or MOS?
MOS is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. MOS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 32 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 MOS?
LIN 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 MOS?
MOS on the Momentum factor, by 53 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 MOS?
LIN is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. LIN on Risk Resilience, by 14 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 MOS?
LIN leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 45.6% vs 11.5%; operating margin 28.7% vs 1.4%; ttm roe 18.9% vs 0.4%.
Is MOS's lead over LIN getting stronger or weaker?
MOS lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 5 to 12 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 2 times in that window, most recently on 2026-06-03, when LIN moved ahead of MOS.
What would change the LIN vs MOS verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: LIN closes the Momentum gap — currently 53 points behind, the largest single contributor to MOS's edge; LIN's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it; MOS's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 1 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 MOS?
LIN: 2 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted. MOS: 1 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 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 MOS it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare LIN and MOS 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.