LRCX vs NXPI Stock Comparison
Lam Research Corporation vs NXP Semiconductors N.V.
NXPI leads
NXPI leads by 4 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Risk Resilience, having only recently taken the lead back from LRCX. Wall Street currently favors LRCX on target upside.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support NXPI, the lead recently changed hands, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Lam Research Corporation
NXP Semiconductors N.V.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors NXPI over LRCX, 55 versus 51 as of Sep 2, 2026. NXPI's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and risk resilience, while LRCX holds the stronger quality profile. NXPI also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors LRCX. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor NXPI today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 4 points. NXPI lead: Reversed — LRCX led by 4 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; NXPI now leads by 4.
Compare Lam Research Corporation and NXP Semiconductors N.V. across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
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.
- Value30%27 vs 65NXPI +38
- Quality30%88 vs 69LRCX +19
- Momentum25%42 vs 32LRCX +10
- Risk Resilience15%39 vs 45NXPI +6
3 of 6 evidence groups favor NXPI. NXPI’s edge is concentrated in value and risk resilience; LRCX keeps a meaningful quality edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-01, compared against the prior scored session 2026-08-31.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
NXPI's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — LRCX and NXPI both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
NXPI (NXP Semiconductors N.V.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and risk resilience.
LRCX (Lam Research Corporation): the counter-case, on quality, momentum, fundamentals — but at materially higher volatility, 54.8% against 32.9%.
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
NXPINXPI on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
LRCXLRCX on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
NXPINXPI on the peer-relative Value factor, by 38 points.
Momentum
LRCXLRCX on the Momentum factor, by 10 points.
Lower downside
NXPINXPI on Risk Resilience, by 6 points.
Analyst upside
LRCXLRCX on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors NXPI, analyst targets favor LRCX. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | LRCX | NXPI | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +29.6% | +18.2% | LRCX has more room |
| Target dispersion | +85.9% | +55.5% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 17 | 8 | 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
3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor NXPI. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | NXPI | 51 vs 55 |
| Fundamentals | LRCXon balance | revenue growth 15.1% vs 9.9%; EPS growth 24.7% vs -31.5%; ROE 67% vs 28%; gross margin 50.5% vs 55.9%; operating margin 35.3% vs 28.7% — LRCX takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | NXPI | Value 27 vs 65 |
| Technicals | LRCX | Price vs 50-day -12.8% vs -10.9%; vs 200-day 16.8% vs -7.6% |
| Risk Resilience | NXPI | Risk Resilience 39 vs 45 |
| Analyst expectations | LRCX | Target upside 29.6% vs 18.2% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of LRCX and NXPI 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 4 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 3 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's signal state is cleanly positive. (supports the conclusion holding)
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 NXPI.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 20 – Sep 1NXPI lead: Reversed — LRCX led by 4 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; NXPI now leads by 4.
- Today
- NXPI +4
- 51 vs 55
- 7 sessions ago
- Level
- 54 vs 54
- 30 sessions ago
- LRCX +4
- 54 vs 50
- 90 sessions ago
- LRCX +8
- 60 vs 52
The lead changed hands 5 times in this window, most recently on Aug 21 when NXPI moved ahead of LRCX.
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 / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (27.67%)
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (5.71%)
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
2 bullish / 0 bearish
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (5.50%)
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
LRCX is conflicted, so the timing case there is weaker than the score alone suggests.
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 -0.96%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +2.81%, AIQ 0 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.
- 1LRCX closes the Value gap — currently 38 points behind, the largest single contributor to NXPI's edge.
- 2LRCX's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 3NXPI's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict.
- 4A regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, 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
LRCX leads on balance| Metric | LRCX | NXPI |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 15.1% | 9.9% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 24.7% | -31.5% |
| Gross margin | 50.5% | 55.9% |
| Operating margin | 35.3% | 28.7% |
| Return on equity | 67% | 28% |
| Debt to equity | 0.33 | 0.96 |
Technicals
LRCX has the stronger structure| Metric | LRCX | NXPI |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 45.8 | 33.1 |
| ADX (14) | 7.9 | 33 |
| Price vs 50-day | -12.8% | -10.9% |
| Price vs 200-day | 16.8% | -7.6% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 54.8% | 32.9% |
Risk
NXPI is the more resilient| Metric | LRCX | NXPI |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 3.3 | 1.74 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.93 | 0.02 |
| Sortino ratio | 3.15 | 0.05 |
| Max drawdown | -41.8% | -33.1% |
| Current drawdown | -30.4% | -32.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 64% | 48.8% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -6.1% | -4.2% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, LRCX or NXPI?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, NXPI is the stronger of the two as of Sep 2, 2026, scoring 55 against LRCX's 51. The edge comes from value and risk resilience. LRCX is not without a case — it holds the better quality 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 LRCX or NXPI the better buy right now?
NXPI carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 2, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 4 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor NXPI over LRCX?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. NXPI leads Value by 38 points; LRCX leads Quality by 19 points; LRCX leads Momentum by 10 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, LRCX or NXPI?
Analyst price targets imply +29.6% upside for LRCX and +18.2% for NXPI, so the Street currently favors LRCX. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors NXPI. 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, LRCX or NXPI?
NXPI is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. NXPI on the peer-relative Value factor, by 38 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, LRCX or NXPI?
LRCX 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, LRCX or NXPI?
LRCX on the Momentum factor, by 10 points. Momentum carries 25% of 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, LRCX or NXPI?
NXPI is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. NXPI on Risk Resilience, by 6 points. The Risk Resilience factor weights 15% of the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is LRCX more profitable than NXPI?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 50.5% vs 55.9%; operating margin 35.3% vs 28.7%; roe 67% vs 28%. LRCX leads on two measures and NXPI 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 NXPI's lead over LRCX getting stronger or weaker?
NXPI lead: Reversed — LRCX led by 4 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; NXPI now leads by 4. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-20 and 2026-09-01. The lead has changed hands 5 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-21, when NXPI moved ahead of LRCX.
What would change the LRCX vs NXPI verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: LRCX closes the Value gap — currently 38 points behind, the largest single contributor to NXPI's edge; LRCX's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it; NXPI's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict; a regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
What do the current signals say about LRCX and NXPI?
LRCX: 1 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. NXPI: 2 bullish / 0 bearish. 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 LRCX is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On NXPI it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare LRCX and NXPI with others
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality (30%), Value (30%), Momentum (25%) and Risk (15%). 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.