LMAT vs MDT Stock Comparison
Compare LMAT and MDT across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between LMAT and MDT?
MDT leads the current stock comparison as Medtronic plc, with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
LeMaitre Vascular, Inc. vs Medtronic plc
MDT leads
MDT leads by 18 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Value, but the lead has narrowed from 22 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors LMAT on target upside.
Competitive: 4 of 6 evidence groups support MDT, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
LeMaitre Vascular, Inc.
Medtronic plc
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors MDT over LMAT, 65 versus 47 as of Sep 11, 2026. MDT's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and value. MDT also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors LMAT. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor MDT today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader's advantage has been narrowing. MDT lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 22 to 18 points over 30 sessions. MDT leads on all four AIQ factor dimensions. Value is itself one of those four, so a sweep is not explained by valuation alone — it deserves additional scrutiny for unmodeled catalysts, expectations or event risk.
Compare LeMaitre Vascular, Inc. and Medtronic plc 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 LMAT and MDT 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.
- Momentum28 vs 59MDT +31
- Value32 vs 58MDT +26
- Risk Resilience64 vs 73MDT +9
- Quality70 vs 74MDT +4
4 of 6 evidence groups favor MDT. MDT’s edge is concentrated in momentum and value.
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 +4
No new signals fired.
MDT's lead widened by 1 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — LMAT and MDT both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
MDT (Medtronic plc): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and value.
LMAT (LeMaitre Vascular, Inc.): the counter-case, on fundamentals, analyst expectations.
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
MDTMDT on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
MDTMDT on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
MDTMDT on the peer-relative Value factor, by 26 points.
Momentum
MDTMDT on the Momentum factor, by 31 points.
Lower downside
MDTMDT on Risk Resilience, by 9 points.
Analyst upside
LMATLMAT on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors MDT, analyst targets favor LMAT. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | LMAT | MDT | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +44.8% | +6.1% | LMAT has more room |
| Target dispersion | +34.3% | +41.5% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 2 | 14 | 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
4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor MDT. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | MDT | 47 vs 65 |
| Fundamentals | LMATon balance | revenue growth 5.8% vs 8.7%; EPS growth 8.7% vs 10.1%; TTM ROE 16.4% vs 14.2%; gross margin 72.9% vs 66.7%; operating margin 29.5% vs 18.1% — LMAT takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | MDT | Value 32 vs 58 |
| Technicals | MDT | Price vs 50-day -11.2% vs 4%; vs 200-day -16.9% vs 2.3% |
| Risk Resilience | MDT | Risk Resilience 64 vs 73 |
| Analyst expectations | LMAT | Target upside 44.8% vs 6.1% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of LMAT and MDT 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 18 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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 MDT.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10MDT lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 22 to 18 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- MDT +18
- 47 vs 65
- 7 sessions ago
- MDT +18
- 50 vs 68
- 30 sessions ago
- MDT +22
- 43 vs 65
- 90 sessions ago
- MDT +1
- 60 vs 61
The lead changed hands once in this window, most recently on May 7 when MDT moved ahead of LMAT.
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 / 3 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (4.55%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- 52-Week Low Proximity — bearish, risk, long horizon (0.0%)
1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (2.45%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
MDT 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 +2.27%, AIQ 0 points).
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -0.72%, 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.
- 1LMAT closes the Momentum gap — currently 31 points behind, the largest single contributor to MDT's edge.
- 2LMAT's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3MDT's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 4 points over 30 sessions, and a further 18-point move would eliminate MDT's advantage entirely.
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
LMAT leads on balance| Metric | LMAT | MDT |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 5.8% | 8.7% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 8.7% | 10.1% |
| Gross margin | 72.9% | 66.7% |
| Operating margin | 29.5% | 18.1% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 16.4% | 14.2% |
| Debt to equity | 0.45 | 0 |
Performance
MDT leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | LMAT | MDT |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -3.6% | -0.6% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -4.1% | 0.9% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -14.7% | 14.2% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -27.3% | 3% |
| Year to date | -2% | -4.6% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -18.8% | -1.5% |
Technicals
MDT has the stronger structure| Metric | LMAT | MDT |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 31.9 | 47.6 |
| ADX (14) | 31.6 | 29.4 |
| Price vs 50-day | -11.2% | 4% |
| Price vs 200-day | -16.9% | 2.3% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 19.3% | 21.4% |
Risk
MDT is the more resilient| Metric | LMAT | MDT |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.46 | 0.17 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.29 | -0.16 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.33 | -0.27 |
| Max drawdown | -32.9% | -30% |
| Current drawdown | -32.9% | -13% |
| Annualized volatility | 44.8% | 23.5% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.1% | -2.1% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, LMAT or MDT?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, MDT is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 65 against LMAT's 47. The edge comes from momentum and value. 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 LMAT or MDT the better buy right now?
MDT 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 MDT over LMAT?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. MDT leads Momentum by 31 points; MDT leads Value by 26 points; MDT leads Risk Resilience by 9 points. MDT leads on all four AIQ factor dimensions. Value is itself one of those four, so the sweep is not explained by LMAT simply being cheaper — it warrants extra scrutiny for unmodeled catalysts, forward expectations or event risk the factors do not capture.
Which has more analyst upside, LMAT or MDT?
Analyst price targets imply +44.8% upside for LMAT and +6.1% for MDT, so the Street currently favors LMAT. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors MDT. 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, LMAT or MDT?
MDT is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. MDT on the peer-relative Value factor, by 26 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, LMAT or MDT?
MDT 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, LMAT or MDT?
MDT on the Momentum factor, by 31 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, LMAT or MDT?
MDT is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. MDT on Risk Resilience, by 9 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 LMAT more profitable than MDT?
LMAT leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 72.9% vs 66.7%; operating margin 29.5% vs 18.1%; ttm roe 16.4% vs 14.2%.
Is MDT's lead over LMAT getting stronger or weaker?
MDT lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 22 to 18 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 once in that window, most recently on 2026-05-07, when MDT moved ahead of LMAT.
What would change the LMAT vs MDT verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: LMAT closes the Momentum gap — currently 31 points behind, the largest single contributor to MDT's edge; LMAT's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; MDT's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 4 points over 30 sessions, and a further 18-point move would eliminate MDT's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about LMAT and MDT?
LMAT: 1 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. MDT: 1 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 LMAT is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On MDT it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare LMAT and MDT 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.