LMAT vs MTD Stock Comparison
Compare LMAT and MTD across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between LMAT and MTD?
LMAT leads the current stock comparison as LeMaitre Vascular, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
LeMaitre Vascular, Inc. vs Mettler-Toledo International Inc.
LMAT leads
LMAT leads by 20 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Momentum, and the lead has widened from 4 points over 30 sessions.
Competitive: 4 of 6 evidence groups support LMAT, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
LeMaitre Vascular, Inc.
Mettler-Toledo International Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors LMAT over MTD, 47 versus 27 as of Sep 11, 2026. LMAT's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and momentum. LMAT also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor LMAT today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. LMAT lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 4 to 20 points over 30 sessions.
Compare LeMaitre Vascular, Inc. and Mettler-Toledo International 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 LMAT and MTD 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.
- Quality70 vs 27LMAT +43
- Momentum28 vs 8LMAT +20
- Risk Resilience64 vs 55LMAT +9
- Value32 vs 30Even
4 of 6 evidence groups favor LMAT. LMAT’s edge is concentrated in quality and momentum.
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.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
LMAT's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — LMAT and MTD both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
LMAT (LeMaitre Vascular, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and momentum.
MTD (Mettler-Toledo International Inc.): the counter-case, on 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
LMATLMAT on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
MTDMTD on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
LMATLMAT on the Momentum factor, by 20 points.
Lower downside
LMATLMAT on Risk Resilience, by 9 points.
Analyst upside
LMATLMAT 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 | LMAT | MTD | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +44.8% | +13.1% | LMAT has more room |
| Target dispersion | +34.3% | +27.8% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 2 | 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 LMAT. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | LMAT | 47 vs 27 |
| Fundamentals | LMATon balance | revenue growth 5.8% vs 8.5%; EPS growth 8.7% vs 38.6%; TTM ROE 16.4% vs -12%; gross margin 72.9% vs 59.3%; operating margin 29.5% vs 28.7% — LMAT takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | Even | Value 32 vs 30 |
| Technicals | MTD | Price vs 50-day -11.2% vs -5.1%; vs 200-day -16.9% vs -2.8% |
| Risk Resilience | LMAT | Risk Resilience 64 vs 55 |
| Analyst expectations | LMAT | Target upside 44.8% vs 13.1% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of LMAT and MTD 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 20 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Signal direction runs against the verdict: the leader is net-bearish while the laggard is net-bullish. (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 LMAT.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10LMAT lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 4 to 20 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- LMAT +20
- 47 vs 27
- 7 sessions ago
- LMAT +21
- 50 vs 29
- 30 sessions ago
- LMAT +4
- 43 vs 39
- 90 sessions ago
- LMAT +14
- 60 vs 46
The lead changed hands once in this window, most recently on Aug 5 when MTD 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%)
3 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (3.38%)
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
LMAT 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).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +1.01%, 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.
- 1MTD closes the Quality gap — currently 43 points behind, the largest single contributor to LMAT's edge.
- 2MTD's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3LMAT's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 3 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
LMAT leads on balance| Metric | LMAT | MTD |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 5.8% | 8.5% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 8.7% | 38.6% |
| Gross margin | 72.9% | 59.3% |
| Operating margin | 29.5% | 28.7% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 16.4% | -12% |
| Debt to equity | 0.45 | 164.7 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | LMAT | MTD |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -3.6% | -6.4% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -4.1% | -11% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -14.7% | 13% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -27.3% | 4.2% |
| Year to date | -2% | -8.1% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -18.8% | -1.8% |
Technicals
MTD has the stronger structure| Metric | LMAT | MTD |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 31.9 | 17.2 |
| ADX (14) | 31.6 | 20.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | -11.2% | -5.1% |
| Price vs 200-day | -16.9% | -2.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 19.3% | 16.8% |
Risk
LMAT is the more resilient| Metric | LMAT | MTD |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.46 | 0.81 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.29 | 0.03 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.33 | 0.04 |
| Max drawdown | -32.9% | -31.9% |
| Current drawdown | -32.9% | -15% |
| Annualized volatility | 44.8% | 31.9% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.1% | -2.6% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, LMAT or MTD?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, LMAT is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 47 against MTD's 27. The edge comes from quality and momentum. 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 MTD the better buy right now?
LMAT 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 LMAT over MTD?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. LMAT leads Quality by 43 points; LMAT leads Momentum by 20 points; LMAT leads Risk Resilience by 9 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, LMAT or MTD?
Analyst price targets imply +44.8% upside for LMAT and +13.1% for MTD, so the Street currently favors LMAT. 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, LMAT or MTD?
Neither name separates on the peer-relative Value factor. The two are level on Value. 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 MTD?
MTD 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 MTD?
LMAT on the Momentum factor, by 20 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 MTD?
LMAT is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. LMAT 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 MTD?
LMAT leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 72.9% vs 59.3%; operating margin 29.5% vs 28.7%; ttm roe 16.4% vs -12%.
Is LMAT's lead over MTD getting stronger or weaker?
LMAT lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 4 to 20 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 2026-08-05, when MTD moved ahead of LMAT.
What would change the LMAT vs MTD verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: MTD closes the Quality gap — currently 43 points behind, the largest single contributor to LMAT's edge; MTD's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it; LMAT's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 3 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 LMAT and MTD?
LMAT: 1 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. MTD: 3 bullish / 2 bearish, 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 MTD it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare LMAT and MTD 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.