LRCX vs SMH Stock Comparison
Lam Research Corporation vs VanEck Semiconductor ETF
LRCX leads
LRCX leads by 8 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Quality.
Fragile: 2 of 4 evidence groups support LRCX, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Lam Research Corporation
VanEck Semiconductor ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors LRCX over SMH, 51 versus 43 as of Sep 2, 2026. LRCX's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and quality. LRCX also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 4 covered evidence groups favor LRCX today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 2 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. LRCX lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 8 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Lam Research Corporation and VanEck Semiconductor ETF 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.
- Risk Resilience15%39 vs 22LRCX +17
- Quality30%88 vs 72LRCX +16
- Momentum25%42 vs 40Even
- Value30%27 vs 27Even
2 of 4 evidence groups favor LRCX. LRCX’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and quality.
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.
Largest factor move: Quality -1
No new signals fired.
LRCX's lead widened by 1 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — LRCX and SMH both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
LRCX (Lam Research Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and quality.
SMH (VanEck Semiconductor ETF): the counter-case, on 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
LRCXLRCX on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
EvenGrowth figures are not covered for both names.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
LRCXLRCX on Risk Resilience, by 17 points.
Analyst upside
EvenAnalyst 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.
| Measure | LRCX | SMH | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +29.6% | — | Level |
| Target dispersion | +85.9% | — | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | — | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 17 | — | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
2 of 4 covered evidence groups favor LRCX. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | LRCX | 51 vs 43 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | Even | Value 27 vs 27 |
| Technicals | SMH | Price vs 50-day -12.7% vs -5.2%; vs 200-day 16.8% vs 17.6% |
| Risk Resilience | LRCX | Risk Resilience 39 vs 22 |
| Analyst expectations | Not covered | Not covered |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of LRCX and SMH 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 8 points.
- Only 2 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Analyst targets on the leader are widely dispersed. (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 LRCX.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 20 – Sep 1LRCX lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 8 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- LRCX +8
- 51 vs 43
- 7 sessions ago
- LRCX +10
- 54 vs 44
- 30 sessions ago
- LRCX +9
- 54 vs 45
- 90 sessions ago
- LRCX +16
- 60 vs 44
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 / 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
1 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (22.68%)
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
LRCX 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 -0.95%, AIQ 0 points).
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +0.98%, 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.
- 1SMH closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 17 points behind, the largest single contributor to LRCX's edge.
- 2SMH's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 3LRCX's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 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
Split| Metric | LRCX | SMH |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 15.1% | — |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 24.7% | — |
| Gross margin | 50.5% | — |
| Operating margin | 35.3% | — |
| Return on equity | 67% | — |
| Debt to equity | 0.33 | — |
Technicals
SMH has the stronger structure| Metric | LRCX | SMH |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 45.8 | 43.4 |
| ADX (14) | 7.9 | 13.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | -12.7% | -5.2% |
| Price vs 200-day | 16.8% | 17.6% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 54.8% | 35.9% |
Risk
LRCX is the more resilient| Metric | LRCX | SMH |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 3.3 | 2.4 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.93 | 1.68 |
| Sortino ratio | 3.15 | 2.38 |
| Max drawdown | -41.8% | -24.6% |
| Current drawdown | -30.4% | -16.8% |
| Annualized volatility | 64% | 39.5% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -6.1% | -4% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, LRCX or SMH?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, LRCX is the stronger of the two as of Sep 2, 2026, scoring 51 against SMH's 43. The edge comes from risk resilience and quality. 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 SMH the better buy right now?
LRCX carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 2, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 2 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: only 2 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor LRCX over SMH?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. LRCX leads Risk Resilience by 17 points; LRCX leads Quality by 16 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, LRCX or SMH?
Analyst price targets imply +29.6% upside for LRCX and not covered for SMH. 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, LRCX or SMH?
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, LRCX or SMH?
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, LRCX or SMH?
The two are level on Momentum. 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 SMH?
LRCX is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. LRCX on Risk Resilience, by 17 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 SMH?
Margin data is not comparable for both names in the current snapshot.
Is LRCX's lead over SMH getting stronger or weaker?
LRCX lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 8 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-20 and 2026-09-01. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the LRCX vs SMH verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: SMH closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 17 points behind, the largest single contributor to LRCX's edge; SMH's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it; LRCX's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; 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 SMH?
LRCX: 1 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. SMH: 1 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 LRCX is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On SMH it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare LRCX and SMH 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.