LRCX vs XLK Stock Comparison
Compare LRCX and XLK across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between LRCX and XLK?
XLK leads the current stock comparison as State Street Technology Select Sector SPDR ETF, with the clearest separation coming from risk resilience and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Lam Research Corporation vs State Street Technology Select Sector SPDR ETF
XLK leads
XLK leads by 7 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Momentum, and the lead has widened from 3 points over 30 sessions.
Stable: 4 of 4 evidence groups support XLK, its lead is widening, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Lam Research Corporation
State Street Technology Select Sector SPDR ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors XLK over LRCX, 59 versus 52 as of Sep 11, 2026. XLK's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and momentum, while LRCX holds the stronger quality profile. XLK also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 4 covered evidence groups favor XLK today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability. XLK lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 3 to 7 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Lam Research Corporation and State Street Technology Select Sector SPDR ETF 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 LRCX and XLK 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.
- Risk Resilience39 vs 62XLK +23
- Momentum45 vs 65XLK +20
- Quality88 vs 74LRCX +14
- Value28 vs 36XLK +8
4 of 4 evidence groups favor XLK. XLK’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and momentum; LRCX keeps a meaningful quality 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 -11
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum -5
No new signals fired.
XLK's lead widened by 2 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — LRCX and XLK both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
XLK (State Street Technology Select Sector SPDR ETF): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and momentum.
LRCX (Lam Research Corporation): the counter-case, on quality — but at materially higher volatility, 53.3% against 20.6%.
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
XLKXLK on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
EvenGrowth figures are not covered for both names.
Value
XLKXLK on the peer-relative Value factor, by 8 points.
Momentum
XLKXLK on the Momentum factor, by 20 points.
Lower downside
XLKXLK on Risk Resilience, by 23 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 | XLK | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +26.8% | — | Level |
| Target dispersion | +79.3% | — | 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
4 of 4 covered evidence groups favor XLK. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | XLK | 52 vs 59 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | XLK | Value 28 vs 36 |
| Technicals | XLK | Price vs 50-day -5.7% vs 2.7%; vs 200-day 13.1% vs 15% |
| Risk Resilience | XLK | Risk Resilience 39 vs 62 |
| 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 XLK and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion rests on a wide gap and broad agreement. It is unlikely to turn on a single session.
- The AIQ gap is moderate at 7 points.
- 4 of 4 covered evidence groups point the same way. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 XLK.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10XLK lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 3 to 7 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- XLK +7
- 52 vs 59
- 7 sessions ago
- XLK +8
- 48 vs 56
- 30 sessions ago
- XLK +3
- 56 vs 59
- 90 sessions ago
- LRCX +7
- 50 vs 43
The lead changed hands 9 times in this window, most recently on Aug 27 when XLK 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.
2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (20.00%)
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (5.35%)
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
4 bullish / 0 bearish
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (13.41%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
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 +0.07%, AIQ -3 points).
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +1.32%, 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.
- 1LRCX closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 23 points behind, the largest single contributor to XLK's edge.
- 2LRCX's ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3XLK's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict.
- 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| Metric | LRCX | XLK |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 15.1% | — |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 24.7% | — |
| Gross margin | 50.5% | — |
| Operating margin | 35.3% | — |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 67% | — |
| Debt to equity | 0.33 | — |
Performance
LRCX leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | LRCX | XLK |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 3.4% | 0.9% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -8.6% | -1.9% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -7.4% | 4.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 36.2% | 31.9% |
| Year to date | 74.1% | 28.7% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 183.6% | 39.9% |
Technicals
XLK has the stronger structure| Metric | LRCX | XLK |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 44 | 54.1 |
| ADX (14) | 8.8 | 10.4 |
| Price vs 50-day | -5.7% | 2.7% |
| Price vs 200-day | 13.1% | 15% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 53.3% | 20.6% |
Risk
XLK is the more resilient| Metric | LRCX | XLK |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 3.27 | 1.75 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.88 | 1.25 |
| Sortino ratio | 3.08 | 1.94 |
| Max drawdown | -41.8% | -16.1% |
| Current drawdown | -31.2% | -6.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 64.4% | 26.4% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -6.1% | -2.6% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, LRCX or XLK?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, XLK is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 59 against LRCX's 52. The edge comes from risk resilience and momentum. 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 XLK the better buy right now?
XLK carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Stable — 4 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. A Stable rating means the gap is wide and the evidence is broad, so the conclusion is unlikely to turn on a single session.
Why does the AIQ Score favor XLK over LRCX?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. XLK leads Risk Resilience by 23 points; XLK leads Momentum by 20 points; LRCX leads Quality by 14 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, LRCX or XLK?
Analyst price targets imply +26.8% upside for LRCX and not covered for XLK. 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 XLK?
XLK is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. XLK on the peer-relative Value factor, by 8 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 XLK?
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 XLK?
XLK on the Momentum factor, by 20 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, LRCX or XLK?
XLK is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. XLK on Risk Resilience, by 23 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 LRCX more profitable than XLK?
Margin data is not comparable for both names in the current snapshot.
Is XLK's lead over LRCX getting stronger or weaker?
XLK lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 3 to 7 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 9 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-27, when XLK moved ahead of LRCX.
What would change the LRCX vs XLK verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: LRCX closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 23 points behind, the largest single contributor to XLK's edge; LRCX's ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; XLK's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict; 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 LRCX and XLK?
LRCX: 2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. XLK: 4 bullish / 0 bearish. The most decision-relevant rule on LRCX is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On XLK 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.