LMT vs RCAT Stock Comparison
Compare LMT and RCAT across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between LMT and RCAT?
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 Red Cat Holdings, Inc.
LMT leads
LMT leads by 6 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Quality. Wall Street currently favors RCAT on target upside.
Fragile: 4 of 6 evidence groups support LMT, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Lockheed Martin Corporation
Red Cat Holdings, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors LMT over RCAT, 41 versus 35 as of Sep 11, 2026. LMT's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and quality, while RCAT 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 RCAT. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor LMT today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. LMT lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 6 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Lockheed Martin Corporation and Red Cat Holdings, 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 RCAT 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 34LMT +29
- Momentum8 vs 27RCAT +19
- Quality45 vs 33LMT +12
- Risk Resilience44 vs 52RCAT +8
4 of 6 evidence groups favor LMT. LMT’s edge is concentrated in value and quality; RCAT 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 +2
No new signals fired.
LMT's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — LMT and RCAT both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
LMT (Lockheed Martin Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and quality.
RCAT (Red Cat Holdings, Inc.): the counter-case, on momentum, risk resilience, analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 68.7% 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
LMTLMT on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
LMTLMT on the peer-relative Value factor, by 29 points.
Momentum
RCATRCAT on the Momentum factor, by 19 points.
Lower downside
RCATRCAT on Risk Resilience, by 8 points.
Analyst upside
RCATRCAT 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 RCAT. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | LMT | RCAT | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +19.1% | +111.1% | RCAT has more room |
| Target dispersion | +20% | +95.2% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 7 | 5 | 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 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 35 |
| Fundamentals | LMTon balance | revenue growth 11.3% vs 30.5%; EPS growth 23.3% vs -18.2%; TTM ROE 86.2% vs -35%; gross margin 11.8% vs 8.6%; operating margin 11.9% vs -161.1% — LMT takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | LMT | Value 63 vs 34 |
| Technicals | LMT | Price vs 50-day -5.8% vs -10%; vs 200-day -5% vs -26.6% |
| Risk Resilience | RCAT | Risk Resilience 44 vs 52 |
| Analyst expectations | RCAT | Target upside 19.1% vs 111.1% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of LMT and RCAT 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 6 points.
- 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: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 6 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- LMT +6
- 41 vs 35
- 7 sessions ago
- LMT +7
- 41 vs 34
- 30 sessions ago
- LMT +7
- 53 vs 46
- 90 sessions ago
- LMT +21
- 55 vs 34
The lead has not changed hands in this window.
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
0 bullish / 3 bearish / 2 neutral
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (24.41%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long 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).
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -1.49%, 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.
- 1RCAT closes the Value gap — currently 29 points behind, the largest single contributor to LMT's edge.
- 2RCAT's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3LMT's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 4 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
LMT leads on balance| Metric | LMT | RCAT |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 11.3% | 30.5% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 23.3% | -18.2% |
| Gross margin | 11.8% | 8.6% |
| Operating margin | 11.9% | -161.1% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 86.2% | -35% |
| Debt to equity | 2.34 | 0.05 |
Performance
LMT leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | LMT | RCAT |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -0.3% | -2.9% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -12.6% | -21.7% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 1% | -25.8% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -18.4% | -50% |
| Year to date | 9.6% | 1.9% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 15.5% | -8.9% |
Technicals
LMT has the stronger structure| Metric | LMT | RCAT |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 28.7 | 32.3 |
| ADX (14) | 25.8 | 14.4 |
| Price vs 50-day | -5.8% | -10% |
| Price vs 200-day | -5% | -26.6% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 28% | 68.7% |
Risk
RCAT is the more resilient| Metric | LMT | RCAT |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.06 | 3.82 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.53 | 0.46 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.91 | 0.93 |
| Max drawdown | -27.4% | -61% |
| Current drawdown | -21.7% | -53.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 28.4% | 114.7% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.7% | -9.9% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, LMT or RCAT?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, LMT is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 41 against RCAT's 35. The edge comes from value and quality. RCAT 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 RCAT the better buy right now?
LMT carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 4 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor LMT over RCAT?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. LMT leads Value by 29 points; RCAT leads Momentum by 19 points; LMT leads Quality by 12 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, LMT or RCAT?
Analyst price targets imply +19.1% upside for LMT and +111.1% for RCAT, so the Street currently favors RCAT. 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 RCAT?
LMT is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. LMT on the peer-relative Value factor, by 29 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 RCAT?
LMT 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 RCAT?
RCAT on the Momentum factor, by 19 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 RCAT?
RCAT is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. RCAT on Risk Resilience, by 8 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 RCAT?
LMT leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 11.8% vs 8.6%; operating margin 11.9% vs -161.1%; ttm roe 86.2% vs -35%.
Is LMT's lead over RCAT getting stronger or weaker?
LMT lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 6 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the LMT vs RCAT verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: RCAT closes the Value gap — currently 29 points behind, the largest single contributor to LMT's edge; RCAT's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; LMT's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 4 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 LMT and RCAT?
LMT: 1 bullish / 4 bearish, conflicted. RCAT: 0 bullish / 3 bearish / 2 neutral. 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 RCAT it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare LMT and RCAT 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.