LMT vs UNH Stock Comparison
LMT currently leads UNH in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 62 vs 60. The clearest difference is momentum, while UNH has the stronger risk resilience profile.
What is the main difference between LMT and UNH?
LMT leads the current stock comparison as Lockheed Martin Corporation, with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Lockheed Martin Corporation vs UnitedHealth Group Incorporated
LMT leads
LMT leads by 2 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum, having only recently taken the lead back from UNH. Wall Street currently favors UNH on target upside.
Fragile: 2 of 6 evidence groups support LMT, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Lockheed Martin Corporation
UnitedHealth Group Incorporated
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors LMT over UNH, 62 versus 60 as of Oct 31, 2026. LMT's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum, while UNH holds the stronger risk resilience profile. LMT also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors UNH. 2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor LMT today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. LMT lead: Reversed — UNH led by 8 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; LMT now leads by 2.
Compare Lockheed Martin Corporation and UnitedHealth Group Incorporated across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Performance over time
Total return with distributions reinvested, from daily closes.
Total return comparison
Growth of $10,000, distributions reinvested
Split-adjusted closes; each distribution is reinvested at the close on its ex-dividend date. Taxes and trading costs are not modeled.
Compare LMT and UNH 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.
- Momentum95 vs 84LMT +11
- Risk Resilience40 vs 51UNH +11
- Value61 vs 58Even
- Quality45 vs 46Even
2 of 6 evidence groups favor LMT. LMT’s edge is concentrated in momentum; UNH keeps a meaningful risk resilience edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-28, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-27.
No factor moved materially.
New signals
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum -3
New signals
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
LMT's lead widened by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — LMT and UNH both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
LMT (Lockheed Martin Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum.
UNH (UnitedHealth Group Incorporated): the counter-case, on risk resilience, analyst expectations.
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
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
LMTLMT on the Momentum factor, by 11 points.
Lower downside
UNHUNH on Risk Resilience, by 11 points.
Analyst upside
UNHUNH 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 UNH. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | LMT | UNH | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -2.8% | +16.3% | UNH has more room |
| Target dispersion | +23.6% | +31.5% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 9 | 19 | 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.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | LMT | UNH |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 6.38% | 12.57% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $9.800 | $4.830 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $13.350 | $8.730 |
| Years increased | 5 | 5 |
| No cut in window | Yes | Yes |
| Cohort rank | #205 | #58 |
UNH grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 12.57% a year against LMT's 6.38%. Neither company reduced its regular dividend in any year of the window.
Yield and payout ratio shown elsewhere on this page are current values, not part of the study window.
Split-adjusted regular dividends per share, 2020–2025, excluding special dividends. Research as of Sep 19, 2026.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
2 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 | Even | 62 vs 60 |
| Fundamentals | LMTon balance | TTM ROE 78.8% vs 16.1%; gross margin 11.7% vs 22.8%; operating margin 11.8% vs 5.3% — LMT takes 2 of 3 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | Even | Value 61 vs 58 |
| Technicals | LMT | Price vs 50-day 17.6% vs 4.5%; vs 200-day 10.9% vs 12.5% |
| Risk Resilience | UNH | Risk Resilience 40 vs 51 |
| Analyst expectations | UNH | Target upside -2.8% vs 16.3% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of LMT and UNH 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 2 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (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
120 daily snapshots · Jun 29 – Oct 28LMT lead: Reversed — UNH led by 8 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; LMT now leads by 2.
- Today
- LMT +2
- 62 vs 60
- 7 sessions ago
- UNH +1
- 62 vs 63
- 30 sessions ago
- UNH +8
- 45 vs 53
- 90 sessions ago
- UNH +1
- 49 vs 50
The lead changed hands 5 times in this window, most recently on Oct 26 when LMT moved ahead of UNH.
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.
3 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted
Only LMT
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (4.79%)
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
4 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
Only UNH
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (7.54%)
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
Both carry 3 more signals that do not separate them: RSI Overbought, EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish, MACD Bullish Crossover.
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 -1.03%, AIQ 0 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved down over the latest session (price -0.96%, 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.
- 1UNH closes the Momentum gap — currently 11 points behind, the largest single contributor to LMT's edge.
- 2UNH's RSI Overbought resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 3LMT's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 2 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 | UNH |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 3.2% | 0.6% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 0.3% | -24.6% |
| Gross margin | 11.7% | 22.8% |
| Operating margin | 11.8% | 5.3% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 78.8% | 16.1% |
| Debt to equity | 2.04 | 0.71 |
Performance
LMT leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | LMT | UNH |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 14.2% | -2.4% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 23.7% | 10.9% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 9.7% | -3.4% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 23.5% | 9.8% |
| Year to date | 30.2% | 23.3% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 29.7% | 12.3% |
Technicals
LMT has the stronger structure| Metric | LMT | UNH |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 85.9 | 70.1 |
| ADX (14) | 42.1 | 34.7 |
| Price vs 50-day | 17.6% | 4.5% |
| Price vs 200-day | 10.9% | 12.5% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 37.2% | 28.6% |
Risk
UNH is the more resilient| Metric | LMT | UNH |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | -0.09 | 0.32 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.88 | 0.36 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.65 | 0.44 |
| Max drawdown | -27.4% | -29.6% |
| Current drawdown | -6.9% | -6.7% |
| Annualized volatility | 30.1% | 34.9% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.6% | -2.3% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, LMT or UNH?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, LMT is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 62 against UNH's 60. The edge comes from momentum. UNH is not without a case — it holds the better risk resilience 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 UNH the better buy right now?
LMT carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 31, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor LMT over UNH?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. LMT leads Momentum by 11 points; UNH leads Risk Resilience by 11 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, LMT or UNH?
Analyst price targets imply -2.8% upside for LMT and +16.3% for UNH, so the Street currently favors UNH. 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 UNH?
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 UNH?
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 UNH?
LMT on the Momentum factor, by 11 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 UNH?
UNH is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. UNH on Risk Resilience, by 11 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 UNH?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 11.7% vs 22.8%; operating margin 11.8% vs 5.3%; ttm roe 78.8% vs 16.1%. LMT leads on two measures and UNH 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 UNH getting stronger or weaker?
LMT lead: Reversed — UNH led by 8 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; LMT now leads by 2. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-29 and 2026-10-28. The lead has changed hands 5 times in that window, most recently on 2026-10-26, when LMT moved ahead of UNH.
What would change the LMT vs UNH verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: UNH closes the Momentum gap — currently 11 points behind, the largest single contributor to LMT's edge; UNH's RSI Overbought resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it; LMT's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 2 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 UNH?
LMT: 3 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted. UNH: 4 bullish / 1 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 UNH it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare LMT and UNH 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.