LMT vs MRCY Stock Comparison
Compare LMT and MRCY across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between LMT and MRCY?
LMT leads the current stock comparison as Lockheed Martin Corporation, with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Lockheed Martin Corporation vs Mercury Systems, Inc.
LMT leads
LMT leads by 8 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Quality, but the lead has narrowed from 13 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors MRCY on target upside.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support LMT, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Lockheed Martin Corporation
Mercury Systems, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors LMT over MRCY, 41 versus 33 as of Sep 11, 2026. LMT's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and quality, while MRCY holds the stronger momentum profile. LMT also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors MRCY. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor LMT today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. LMT lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 13 to 8 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Lockheed Martin Corporation and Mercury Systems, 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 LMT and MRCY 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.
- Value63 vs 27LMT +36
- Momentum8 vs 21MRCY +13
- Risk Resilience44 vs 57MRCY +13
- Quality45 vs 37LMT +8
3 of 6 evidence groups favor LMT. LMT’s edge is concentrated in value and quality; MRCY 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: Risk Resilience +1
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum +1
No new signals fired.
LMT's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — LMT and MRCY both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
LMT (Lockheed Martin Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and quality.
MRCY (Mercury Systems, Inc.): the counter-case, on momentum, risk resilience, fundamentals — but at materially higher volatility, 45.5% against 28%.
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
LMTLMT on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
MRCYMRCY on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
LMTLMT on the peer-relative Value factor, by 36 points.
Momentum
MRCYMRCY on the Momentum factor, by 13 points.
Lower downside
MRCYMRCY on Risk Resilience, by 13 points.
Analyst upside
MRCYMRCY on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors LMT, analyst targets favor MRCY. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | LMT | MRCY | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +19.1% | +40.3% | MRCY has more room |
| Target dispersion | +20% | +55.7% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 7 | 7 | 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 LMT. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | LMT | 41 vs 33 |
| Fundamentals | MRCYon balance | revenue growth 11.3% vs 22.9%; EPS growth 23.3% vs 127.8%; TTM ROE 86.2% vs -2%; gross margin 11.8% vs 26.7% — MRCY takes 3 of 4 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | LMT | Value 63 vs 27 |
| Technicals | LMT | Price vs 50-day -5.8% vs -19.6%; vs 200-day -5% vs -10.8% |
| Risk Resilience | MRCY | Risk Resilience 44 vs 57 |
| Analyst expectations | MRCY | Target upside 19.1% vs 40.3% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of LMT and MRCY 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 moderate at 8 points.
- 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)
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 LMT.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10LMT lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 13 to 8 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- LMT +8
- 41 vs 33
- 7 sessions ago
- LMT +9
- 41 vs 32
- 30 sessions ago
- LMT +13
- 53 vs 40
- 90 sessions ago
- LMT +13
- 55 vs 42
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on May 12 when LMT moved ahead of MRCY.
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 / 4 bearish, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (0.25%)
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
2 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (10.42%)
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
LMT 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 -1.12%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.22%, 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.
- 1MRCY closes the Value gap — currently 36 points behind, the largest single contributor to LMT's edge.
- 2MRCY's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3LMT's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 4 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 5 points over 30 sessions, and a further 8-point move would eliminate LMT'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
MRCY leads on balance| Metric | LMT | MRCY |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 11.3% | 22.9% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 23.3% | 127.8% |
| Gross margin | 11.8% | 26.7% |
| Operating margin | 11.9% | 0.5% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 86.2% | -2% |
| Debt to equity | 2.34 | 0.33 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | LMT | MRCY |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -0.3% | -2.6% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -12.6% | -26% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 1% | -24.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -18.4% | -6.5% |
| Year to date | 9.6% | 10.2% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 15.5% | 17.1% |
Technicals
LMT has the stronger structure| Metric | LMT | MRCY |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 28.7 | 23.1 |
| ADX (14) | 25.8 | 29 |
| Price vs 50-day | -5.8% | -19.6% |
| Price vs 200-day | -5% | -10.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 28% | 45.5% |
Risk
MRCY is the more resilient| Metric | LMT | MRCY |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.06 | 2.31 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.53 | 0.5 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.91 | 0.68 |
| Max drawdown | -27.4% | -36.3% |
| Current drawdown | -21.7% | -36.3% |
| Annualized volatility | 28.4% | 58% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.7% | -5.3% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, LMT or MRCY?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, LMT is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 41 against MRCY's 33. The edge comes from value and quality. MRCY 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 LMT or MRCY the better buy right now?
LMT 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: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor LMT over MRCY?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. LMT leads Value by 36 points; MRCY leads Momentum by 13 points; MRCY leads Risk Resilience by 13 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, LMT or MRCY?
Analyst price targets imply +19.1% upside for LMT and +40.3% for MRCY, so the Street currently favors MRCY. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors LMT. 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, LMT or MRCY?
LMT is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. LMT on the peer-relative Value factor, by 36 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, LMT or MRCY?
MRCY 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, LMT or MRCY?
MRCY on the Momentum factor, by 13 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, LMT or MRCY?
MRCY is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. MRCY on Risk Resilience, by 13 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 LMT more profitable than MRCY?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 11.8% vs 26.7%; operating margin 11.9% vs 0.5%; ttm roe 86.2% vs -2%. Each name leads 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 LMT's lead over MRCY getting stronger or weaker?
LMT lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 13 to 8 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 2026-05-12, when LMT moved ahead of MRCY.
What would change the LMT vs MRCY verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: MRCY closes the Value gap — currently 36 points behind, the largest single contributor to LMT's edge; MRCY's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it; LMT's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 4 bearish rules at once; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 5 points over 30 sessions, and a further 8-point move would eliminate LMT's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about LMT and MRCY?
LMT: 1 bullish / 4 bearish, conflicted. MRCY: 2 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 LMT is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On MRCY it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare LMT and MRCY 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.