LMT vs NOC Stock Comparison
Compare LMT and NOC across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between LMT and NOC?
NOC leads the current stock comparison as Northrop Grumman Corporation, with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Lockheed Martin Corporation vs Northrop Grumman Corporation
NOC leads
NOC leads by 3 AIQ points, primarily on Quality, but the lead has narrowed from 8 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 1 of 6 evidence groups support NOC, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Lockheed Martin Corporation
Northrop Grumman Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors NOC over LMT, 44 versus 41 as of Sep 11, 2026. NOC's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality. NOC also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 1 of 6 covered evidence groups favor NOC today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 3 points. NOC lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 8 to 3 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Lockheed Martin Corporation and Northrop Grumman Corporation 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 NOC 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.
- Quality45 vs 52NOC +7
- Momentum8 vs 10Even
- Value63 vs 64Even
- Risk Resilience44 vs 43Even
1 of 6 evidence groups favor NOC. NOC’s edge is concentrated in quality.
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 +2
No new signals fired.
NOC's lead widened by 1 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — LMT and NOC both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
NOC (Northrop Grumman Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality.
LMT (Lockheed Martin Corporation): the counter-case, on fundamentals, 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
NOCNOC on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
EvenGrowth figures are not covered for both names.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
NOCNOC carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
NOCNOC 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 | LMT | NOC | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +19.1% | +22.6% | NOC has more room |
| Target dispersion | +20% | +38.5% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 7 | 9 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
1 of 6 covered evidence groups favor NOC. 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 | 41 vs 44 |
| Fundamentals | LMTon balance | revenue growth 11.3% vs 10.1%; EPS growth 23.3% vs 25%; TTM ROE 86.2% vs 26.6%; gross margin 11.8% vs 20.1%; operating margin 11.9% vs 10.2% — LMT takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | Even | Value 63 vs 64 |
| Technicals | LMT | Price vs 50-day -5.8% vs -4.7%; vs 200-day -5% vs -13.8% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 44 vs 43 |
| Analyst expectations | NOC | Target upside 19.1% vs 22.6% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of LMT and NOC 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 3 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 1 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (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 NOC.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10NOC lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 8 to 3 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- NOC +3
- 41 vs 44
- 7 sessions ago
- NOC +2
- 41 vs 43
- 30 sessions ago
- NOC +8
- 53 vs 61
- 90 sessions ago
- NOC +4
- 55 vs 59
The lead changed hands 8 times in this window, most recently on Sep 1 when NOC moved ahead of LMT.
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
1 bullish / 4 bearish, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (10.55%)
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
NOC 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%, 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.
- 1LMT closes the Quality gap — currently 7 points behind, the largest single contributor to NOC's edge.
- 2LMT's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3NOC'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 3-point move would eliminate NOC'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
LMT leads on balance| Metric | LMT | NOC |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 11.3% | 10.1% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 23.3% | 25% |
| Gross margin | 11.8% | 20.1% |
| Operating margin | 11.9% | 10.2% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 86.2% | 26.6% |
| Debt to equity | 2.34 | 0.91 |
Performance
LMT leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | LMT | NOC |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -0.3% | -0.9% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -12.6% | -10.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 1% | -4.3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -18.4% | -29.2% |
| Year to date | 9.6% | -9% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 15.5% | -10.8% |
Technicals
LMT has the stronger structure| Metric | LMT | NOC |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 28.7 | 23.1 |
| ADX (14) | 25.8 | 15.7 |
| Price vs 50-day | -5.8% | -4.7% |
| Price vs 200-day | -5% | -13.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 28% | 26.2% |
Risk
Split| Metric | LMT | NOC |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.06 | 0.1 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.53 | -0.36 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.91 | -0.54 |
| Max drawdown | -27.4% | -35.4% |
| Current drawdown | -21.7% | -32.4% |
| Annualized volatility | 28.4% | 27.3% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.7% | -2.5% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, LMT or NOC?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, NOC is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 44 against LMT's 41. The edge comes from quality. 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 NOC the better buy right now?
NOC carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 1 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 3 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor NOC over LMT?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. NOC leads Quality by 7 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, LMT or NOC?
Analyst price targets imply +19.1% upside for LMT and +22.6% for NOC, so the Street currently favors NOC. 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, LMT or NOC?
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, LMT or NOC?
Growth figures are not covered for both names. 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 NOC?
The two are level on Momentum. 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 NOC?
NOC is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. NOC carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility. 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 NOC?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 11.8% vs 20.1%; operating margin 11.9% vs 10.2%; ttm roe 86.2% vs 26.6%. LMT leads on two measures and NOC 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 NOC's lead over LMT getting stronger or weaker?
NOC lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 8 to 3 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 2026-09-01, when NOC moved ahead of LMT.
What would change the LMT vs NOC verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: LMT closes the Quality gap — currently 7 points behind, the largest single contributor to NOC's edge; LMT's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; NOC'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 3-point move would eliminate NOC's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about LMT and NOC?
LMT: 1 bullish / 4 bearish, conflicted. NOC: 1 bullish / 4 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 LMT is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On NOC it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare LMT and NOC 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.