LNC vs MET Stock Comparison
Compare LNC and MET across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between LNC and MET?
LNC leads the current stock comparison as Lincoln National Corporation, with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Lincoln National Corporation vs MetLife, Inc.
LNC leads
LNC leads by 9 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Value, and the lead has widened from 6 points over 30 sessions.
Competitive: 4 of 6 evidence groups support LNC, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Lincoln National Corporation
MetLife, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors LNC over MET, 71 versus 62 as of Sep 11, 2026. LNC's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and value, while MET holds the stronger risk resilience profile. LNC also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor LNC today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. LNC lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 6 to 9 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Lincoln National Corporation and MetLife, 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 LNC and MET 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.
- Quality69 vs 43LNC +26
- Value73 vs 66LNC +7
- Risk Resilience72 vs 78MET +6
- Momentum70 vs 70Even
4 of 6 evidence groups favor LNC. LNC’s edge is concentrated in quality and value; MET keeps a meaningful risk resilience 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 +8
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum +7
No new signals fired.
LNC's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — LNC and MET both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
LNC (Lincoln National Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and value.
MET (MetLife, Inc.): the counter-case, on risk resilience, 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
LNCLNC on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
LNCLNC on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
LNCLNC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 7 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
METMET on Risk Resilience, by 6 points.
Analyst upside
LNCLNC 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 | LNC | MET | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +4.2% | +1% | LNC has more room |
| Target dispersion | +43.8% | +25.5% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 3 | 9 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor LNC. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | LNC | 71 vs 62 |
| Fundamentals | LNCon balance | revenue growth -14.4% vs -1%; EPS growth 8.6% vs -37.1%; TTM ROE 22% vs 13%; gross margin 57.5% vs 25.6%; operating margin 14.6% vs 6.2% — LNC takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | LNC | Value 73 vs 66 |
| Technicals | MET | Price vs 50-day 2.4% vs 2.3%; vs 200-day 10.3% vs 17.6% |
| Risk Resilience | MET | Risk Resilience 72 vs 78 |
| Analyst expectations | LNC | Target upside 4.2% vs 1% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of LNC and MET and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
- The AIQ gap is moderate at 9 points.
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 LNC.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10LNC lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 6 to 9 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- LNC +9
- 71 vs 62
- 7 sessions ago
- LNC +9
- 70 vs 61
- 30 sessions ago
- LNC +6
- 64 vs 58
- 90 sessions ago
- LNC +9
- 71 vs 62
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on May 27 when MET moved ahead of LNC.
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 / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (8.48%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
3 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (15.43%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
LNC 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.
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.64%, AIQ +2 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.37%, AIQ +2 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.
- 1MET closes the Quality gap — currently 26 points behind, the largest single contributor to LNC's edge.
- 2MET's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3LNC's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 1 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
LNC leads on balance| Metric | LNC | MET |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -14.4% | -1% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 8.6% | -37.1% |
| Gross margin | 57.5% | 25.6% |
| Operating margin | 14.6% | 6.2% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 22% | 13% |
| Debt to equity | 0.6 | 0.74 |
Performance
MET leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | LNC | MET |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -1.3% | 0.4% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -1.2% | 0.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 20.3% | 12.4% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 31.3% | 35.9% |
| Year to date | -2.2% | 22.6% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 4.5% | 21.6% |
Technicals
MET has the stronger structure| Metric | LNC | MET |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 59.8 | 60.3 |
| ADX (14) | 19.2 | 13.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | 2.4% | 2.3% |
| Price vs 200-day | 10.3% | 17.6% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 34% | 22.2% |
Risk
MET is the more resilient| Metric | LNC | MET |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.1 | 0.69 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.2 | 0.8 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.26 | 1.13 |
| Max drawdown | -29.9% | -18.3% |
| Current drawdown | -7.3% | -3.2% |
| Annualized volatility | 34.6% | 23.8% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.9% | -2.2% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, LNC or MET?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, LNC is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 71 against MET's 62. The edge comes from quality and value. MET 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 LNC or MET the better buy right now?
LNC carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 4 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Competitive rating means the two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
Why does the AIQ Score favor LNC over MET?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. LNC leads Quality by 26 points; LNC leads Value by 7 points; MET leads Risk Resilience by 6 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, LNC or MET?
Analyst price targets imply +4.2% upside for LNC and +1% for MET, so the Street currently favors LNC. 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, LNC or MET?
LNC is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. LNC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 7 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, LNC or MET?
LNC 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, LNC or MET?
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, LNC or MET?
MET is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. MET on Risk Resilience, by 6 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 LNC more profitable than MET?
LNC leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 57.5% vs 25.6%; operating margin 14.6% vs 6.2%; ttm roe 22% vs 13%.
Is LNC's lead over MET getting stronger or weaker?
LNC lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 6 to 9 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 2026-05-27, when MET moved ahead of LNC.
What would change the LNC vs MET verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: MET closes the Quality gap — currently 26 points behind, the largest single contributor to LNC's edge; MET's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; LNC's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 1 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 LNC and MET?
LNC: 3 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. MET: 3 bullish / 1 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 LNC is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On MET it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare LNC and MET 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.