LNC vs SPY Stock Comparison

Compare LNC and SPY across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.

Market data as of Sep 11, 2026 market close· AIQ score gap 11 points
LNC
Financial Services
vs
SPY
Equity
LNC
Lincoln National Corporation
Leads
Price
$43.84
Day move
+0.64%
AIQ Score
71/100
Best edge
Value
Sector
Financial Services
SPY
State Street SPDR S&P 500 ETF
Price
$764
Day move
+0.85%
AIQ Score
60/100
Best edge
Risk Resilience
Sector
Equity

What is the main difference between LNC and SPY?

LNC leads the current stock comparison as Lincoln National Corporation, with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.

AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison

Lincoln National Corporation vs State Street SPDR S&P 500 ETF

Data as of Sep 11, 2026· market close· LNC (stock) vs SPY (ETF)· Coverage 66/66 fields· 42/42 directly comparable· Moderate confidence
AIQ VerdictFragileAIQ Comparison Conviction 5/10

LNC leads

LNC leads by 11 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Momentum, having only recently taken the lead back from SPY.

Fragile: 3 of 4 evidence groups support LNC, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.

Evidence agreement: 3 of 4Comparison trend: Reversed
LNC

Lincoln National Corporation

Leads
AIQ Score
71/100
AIQ Edge Score
10/10
SPY

State Street SPDR S&P 500 ETF

AIQ Score
60/100
AIQ Edge Score
9/10

The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors LNC over SPY, 71 versus 60 as of Sep 11, 2026. LNC's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and momentum, while SPY holds the stronger risk resilience profile. LNC also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 4 covered evidence groups favor LNC today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. LNC lead: Reversed — SPY led by 5 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; LNC now leads by 11.

Compare Lincoln National Corporation and State Street SPDR S&P 500 ETF across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.

Currently unavailable

Performance over time

Price-return comparison using available daily close history.

LNC
-34.5%
SPY
+69.7%

Total return comparison

Growth of $10,000

LNC $6,548 · SPY $16,970

Based on available close-price history. Distribution reinvestment is not added unless already reflected in the source series.

Compare LNC and SPY against another ticker

Open a multi-ticker workspace without changing this focused pair page.

Basic: 2 symbols·Explorer: 3 symbols·Pro and Premium: 5 symbols·Your limit: 2

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.

LNC advantage
0
SPY advantage
  • Value73 vs 39
    LNC +34
  • Momentum70 vs 39
    LNC +31
  • Risk Resilience72 vs 89
    SPY +17
  • Quality69 vs 84
    SPY +15

3 of 4 evidence groups favor LNC. LNC’s edge is concentrated in value and momentum; SPY 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.

LNC+2 AIQ

Largest factor move: Momentum +8

No new signals fired.

SPY-3 AIQ

Largest factor move: Momentum -13

No new signals fired.

LNC's lead widened by 5 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.

Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — LNC and SPY both carry a full feed there.

The central trade-off

LNC (Lincoln National Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and momentum.

SPY (State Street SPDR S&P 500 ETF): the counter-case, on risk resilience, quality.

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

LNC

LNC on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.

Growth

Even

Growth figures are not covered for both names.

Value

LNC

LNC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 34 points.

Momentum

LNC

LNC on the Momentum factor, by 31 points.

Lower downside

SPY

SPY on Risk Resilience, by 17 points.

Analyst upside

Even

Analyst targets are level or not covered for both names.

AIQ vs Wall Street

Where the systematic read and the analyst consensus line up — and where they do not.

MeasureLNCSPYNote
Implied upside to target+4.2%Level
Target dispersion+43.8%Lower is tighter analyst agreement
ConsensusHoldContext, not a primary driver
Analysts covering3Higher coverage generally improves confidence

Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.

AIQ Agreement Matrix

3 of 4 covered evidence groups favor LNC. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.

Evidence groupFavorsReading
AIQ ScoreLNC71 vs 60
FundamentalsNot coveredNot covered
ValuationLNCValue 73 vs 39
TechnicalsLNCPrice vs 50-day 2.4% vs 0.8%; vs 200-day 10.3% vs 6.2%
Risk ResilienceSPYRisk Resilience 72 vs 89
Analyst expectationsNot coveredNot covered

✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of LNC and SPY and are excluded from the count.

AIQ Decision Stability

Fragile

The conclusion is sensitive to small changes. Treat the lead as provisional and watch the flip conditions below.

  • The AIQ gap is moderate at 11 points.
  • 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 LNC.

How the comparison changed

119 daily snapshots · May 4 Sep 10

LNC lead: Reversed — SPY led by 5 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; LNC now leads by 11.

May 4LNC leads above the line · SPY leads belowSep 10
Today
LNC +11
71 vs 60
7 sessions ago
LNC +6
70 vs 64
30 sessions ago
SPY +5
64 vs 69
90 sessions ago
LNC +12
71 vs 59

The lead changed hands 6 times in this window, most recently on Aug 24 when LNC moved ahead of SPY.

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.

LNCConflicted

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
SPYConflicted

3 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted

  • Golden Cross Active bullish, trend, long horizon (6.24%)
  • EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish bullish, trend, medium horizon
  • 52-Week High Proximity bullish, risk, long horizon (2.5%)

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.

LNCConfirmed strength

Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.64%, AIQ +2 points).

SPYDivergence

Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 3 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +0.85%, AIQ -3 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.

  1. 1SPY closes the Value gap — currently 34 points behind, the largest single contributor to LNC's edge.
  2. 2SPY generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover or Uptrend Structure Active.
  3. 3LNC's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
  4. 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

Split
MetricLNCSPY
Revenue growth (YoY)-14.4%
EPS growth (YoY)8.6%
Gross margin57.5%
Operating margin14.6%
Return on equity (TTM)22%
Debt to equity0.6

Performance

Split across windows
MetricLNCSPY
1 week (5 sessions)-1.3%-1%
1 month (20 sessions)-1.2%-1.9%
3 months (63 sessions)20.3%4.5%
6 months (126 sessions)31.3%12.1%
Year to date-2.2%11.1%
1 year (252 sessions)4.5%16.8%

Technicals

LNC has the stronger structure
MetricLNCSPY
RSI (14)59.845.1
ADX (14)19.212.3
Price vs 50-day2.4%0.8%
Price vs 200-day10.3%6.2%
Volatility (1M, annualized)34%8.5%

Risk

SPY is the more resilient
MetricLNCSPY
Beta1.11
Sharpe ratio0.20.95
Sortino ratio0.261.38
Max drawdown-29.9%-9.1%
Current drawdown-7.3%-2.6%
Annualized volatility34.6%12.9%
Value at risk (95%)-3.9%-1.4%

Straight answers

Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.

Which is better, LNC or SPY?

On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, LNC is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 71 against SPY's 60. The edge comes from value and momentum. SPY 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 SPY the better buy right now?

LNC carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 3 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. Treat the lead as provisional.

Why does the AIQ Score favor LNC over SPY?

The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. LNC leads Value by 34 points; LNC leads Momentum by 31 points; SPY leads Risk Resilience by 17 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.

Which has more analyst upside, LNC or SPY?

Analyst price targets imply +4.2% upside for LNC and not covered for SPY. 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 SPY?

LNC is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. LNC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 34 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 SPY?

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, LNC or SPY?

LNC on the Momentum factor, by 31 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, LNC or SPY?

SPY is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. SPY on Risk Resilience, by 17 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 SPY?

Margin data is not comparable for both names in the current snapshot.

Is LNC's lead over SPY getting stronger or weaker?

LNC lead: Reversed — SPY led by 5 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; LNC now leads by 11. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has changed hands 6 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-24, when LNC moved ahead of SPY.

What would change the LNC vs SPY verdict?

The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: SPY closes the Value gap — currently 34 points behind, the largest single contributor to LNC's edge; SPY generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover or Uptrend Structure Active; 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 SPY?

LNC: 3 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. SPY: 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 SPY it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).

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.