LMAT vs NVCR Stock Comparison
Compare LMAT and NVCR across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between LMAT and NVCR?
NVCR leads the current stock comparison as Novocure Ltd, with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
LeMaitre Vascular, Inc. vs Novocure Ltd
NVCR leads
NVCR leads by 1 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Momentum, but the lead has narrowed from 17 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support NVCR, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
LeMaitre Vascular, Inc.
Novocure Ltd
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors NVCR over LMAT, 48 versus 47 as of Sep 11, 2026. NVCR's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and momentum, while LMAT holds the stronger quality profile. NVCR also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor NVCR today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. NVCR lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 17 to 1 points over 30 sessions.
Compare LeMaitre Vascular, Inc. and Novocure Ltd 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 NVCR 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.
- Value32 vs 55NVCR +23
- Quality70 vs 50LMAT +20
- Risk Resilience64 vs 54LMAT +10
- Momentum28 vs 32NVCR +4
3 of 6 evidence groups favor NVCR. NVCR’s edge is concentrated in value and momentum; LMAT 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 +1
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum +1
No new signals fired.
NVCR'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 NVCR both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
NVCR (Novocure Ltd): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and momentum.
LMAT (LeMaitre Vascular, Inc.): the counter-case, on quality, risk resilience.
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
NVCRNVCR on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
NVCRNVCR on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
NVCRNVCR on the peer-relative Value factor, by 23 points.
Momentum
NVCRNVCR on the Momentum factor, by 4 points.
Lower downside
LMATLMAT on Risk Resilience, by 10 points.
Analyst upside
NVCRNVCR 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 | NVCR | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +44.8% | +141.8% | NVCR has more room |
| Target dispersion | +34.3% | +85.3% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 2 | 2 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor NVCR. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | Even | 47 vs 48 |
| Fundamentals | Even | revenue growth 5.8% vs 5.5%; EPS growth 8.7% vs 79%; TTM ROE 16.4% vs -44%; gross margin 72.9% vs 76.1%; operating margin 29.5% vs -22.1% |
| Valuation | NVCR | Value 32 vs 55 |
| Technicals | NVCR | Price vs 50-day -11.2% vs -7.8%; vs 200-day -16.9% vs 6.4% |
| Risk Resilience | LMAT | Risk Resilience 64 vs 54 |
| Analyst expectations | NVCR | Target upside 44.8% vs 141.8% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of LMAT and NVCR 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 1 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Analyst targets on the leader are widely dispersed. (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 NVCR.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10NVCR lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 17 to 1 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- NVCR +1
- 47 vs 48
- 7 sessions ago
- NVCR +6
- 50 vs 56
- 30 sessions ago
- NVCR +17
- 43 vs 60
- 90 sessions ago
- LMAT +4
- 60 vs 56
The lead changed hands 8 times in this window, most recently on Aug 5 when NVCR 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%)
2 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (16.71%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
NVCR 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 and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +1.04%, 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 Value gap — currently 23 points behind, the largest single contributor to NVCR's edge.
- 2LMAT's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3NVCR's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 16 points over 30 sessions, and a further 1-point move would eliminate NVCR'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
Split| Metric | LMAT | NVCR |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 5.8% | 5.5% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 8.7% | 79% |
| Gross margin | 72.9% | 76.1% |
| Operating margin | 29.5% | -22.1% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 16.4% | -44% |
| Debt to equity | 0.45 | 0.69 |
Performance
NVCR leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | LMAT | NVCR |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -3.6% | -13.9% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -4.1% | -12.7% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -14.7% | -7.8% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -27.3% | 21.6% |
| Year to date | -2% | 18.7% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -18.8% | 21.8% |
Technicals
NVCR has the stronger structure| Metric | LMAT | NVCR |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 31.9 | 31 |
| ADX (14) | 31.6 | 23 |
| Price vs 50-day | -11.2% | -7.8% |
| Price vs 200-day | -16.9% | 6.4% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 19.3% | 52.2% |
Risk
LMAT is the more resilient| Metric | LMAT | NVCR |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.46 | 1.62 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.29 | 0.57 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.33 | 1.03 |
| Max drawdown | -32.9% | -32.5% |
| Current drawdown | -32.9% | -23.2% |
| Annualized volatility | 44.8% | 80.7% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.1% | -6.1% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, LMAT or NVCR?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, NVCR is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 48 against LMAT's 47. The edge comes from value and momentum. LMAT 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 LMAT or NVCR the better buy right now?
NVCR carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor NVCR over LMAT?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. NVCR leads Value by 23 points; LMAT leads Quality by 20 points; LMAT leads Risk Resilience by 10 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, LMAT or NVCR?
Analyst price targets imply +44.8% upside for LMAT and +141.8% for NVCR, so the Street currently favors NVCR. 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 NVCR?
NVCR is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. NVCR on the peer-relative Value factor, by 23 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 NVCR?
NVCR 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 NVCR?
NVCR on the Momentum factor, by 4 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 NVCR?
LMAT is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. LMAT on Risk Resilience, by 10 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 NVCR?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 72.9% vs 76.1%; operating margin 29.5% vs -22.1%; ttm roe 16.4% vs -44%. LMAT leads on two measures and NVCR 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 NVCR's lead over LMAT getting stronger or weaker?
NVCR lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 17 to 1 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 8 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-05, when NVCR moved ahead of LMAT.
What would change the LMAT vs NVCR verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: LMAT closes the Value gap — currently 23 points behind, the largest single contributor to NVCR's edge; LMAT's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; NVCR's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 16 points over 30 sessions, and a further 1-point move would eliminate NVCR's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about LMAT and NVCR?
LMAT: 1 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. NVCR: 2 bullish / 2 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 LMAT is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On NVCR it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare LMAT and NVCR 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.