LSCC vs MTSI Stock Comparison
Compare LSCC and MTSI across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between LSCC and MTSI?
MTSI leads the current stock comparison as MACOM Technology Solutions Holdings, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Lattice Semiconductor Corporation vs MACOM Technology Solutions Holdings, Inc.
MTSI leads
MTSI leads by 5 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Quality.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support MTSI, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Lattice Semiconductor Corporation
MACOM Technology Solutions Holdings, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors MTSI over LSCC, 49 versus 44 as of Sep 11, 2026. MTSI's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and quality, while LSCC holds the stronger risk resilience profile. MTSI also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor MTSI today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 5 points. MTSI lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 5 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Lattice Semiconductor Corporation and MACOM Technology Solutions Holdings, 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 LSCC and MTSI 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.
- Momentum44 vs 57MTSI +13
- Risk Resilience47 vs 41LSCC +6
- Quality64 vs 69MTSI +5
- Value24 vs 25Even
3 of 6 evidence groups favor MTSI. MTSI’s edge is concentrated in momentum and quality; LSCC 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 -2
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum -19
No new signals fired.
MTSI's lead narrowed by 3 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — LSCC and MTSI both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
MTSI (MACOM Technology Solutions Holdings, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and quality.
LSCC (Lattice Semiconductor Corporation): the counter-case, on risk resilience.
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
MTSIMTSI on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
MTSIMTSI on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
MTSIMTSI on the Momentum factor, by 13 points.
Lower downside
LSCCLSCC on Risk Resilience, by 6 points.
Analyst upside
MTSIMTSI 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 | LSCC | MTSI | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +28.8% | +41.3% | MTSI has more room |
| Target dispersion | +32.4% | +45% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 7 | 8 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor MTSI. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | MTSI | 44 vs 49 |
| Fundamentals | MTSIon balance | revenue growth 17.7% vs 18.4%; EPS growth -12.5% vs 112.9%; TTM ROE 4.9% vs 17.1%; gross margin 67.7% vs 56.6%; operating margin 7.6% vs 18.1% — MTSI takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | Even | Value 24 vs 25 |
| Technicals | Even | Price vs 50-day -4.7% vs -2.8%; vs 200-day 5% vs 2.7% |
| Risk Resilience | LSCC | Risk Resilience 47 vs 41 |
| Analyst expectations | MTSI | Target upside 28.8% vs 41.3% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of LSCC and MTSI 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 5 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (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 MTSI.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10MTSI lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 5 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- MTSI +5
- 44 vs 49
- 7 sessions ago
- MTSI +1
- 41 vs 42
- 30 sessions ago
- MTSI +6
- 44 vs 50
- 90 sessions ago
- LSCC +3
- 41 vs 38
The lead changed hands 3 times in this window, most recently on Sep 4 when MTSI moved ahead of LSCC.
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 (15.53%)
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (4.78%)
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (6.56%)
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (5.55%)
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
Price vs model alignment
Whether the latest session's price move confirms what the model did over the same session, or contradicts it.
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +4.92%, AIQ -1 points).
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 4 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +0.91%, AIQ -4 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.
- 1LSCC closes the Momentum gap — currently 13 points behind, the largest single contributor to MTSI's edge.
- 2LSCC's ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3MTSI'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
MTSI leads on balance| Metric | LSCC | MTSI |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 17.7% | 18.4% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -12.5% | 112.9% |
| Gross margin | 67.7% | 56.6% |
| Operating margin | 7.6% | 18.1% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 4.9% | 17.1% |
| Debt to equity | 0.05 | 0.24 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | LSCC | MTSI |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 0.2% | 5.8% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -11.7% | -12.3% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -13.8% | -23.1% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 25.7% | 22.4% |
| Year to date | 55.1% | 59.1% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 71.2% | 109.2% |
Technicals
Split| Metric | LSCC | MTSI |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 44.4 | 53.4 |
| ADX (14) | 18.5 | 16.5 |
| Price vs 50-day | -4.7% | -2.8% |
| Price vs 200-day | 5% | 2.7% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 42.8% | 63.4% |
Risk
LSCC is the more resilient| Metric | LSCC | MTSI |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.9 | 2.22 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.15 | 1.47 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.82 | 2.23 |
| Max drawdown | -28.1% | -44.2% |
| Current drawdown | -26.5% | -33.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 59.5% | 60.3% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -5.8% | -6.7% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, LSCC or MTSI?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, MTSI is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 49 against LSCC's 44. The edge comes from momentum and quality. LSCC 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 LSCC or MTSI the better buy right now?
MTSI carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 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 5 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor MTSI over LSCC?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. MTSI leads Momentum by 13 points; LSCC leads Risk Resilience by 6 points; MTSI leads Quality by 5 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, LSCC or MTSI?
Analyst price targets imply +28.8% upside for LSCC and +41.3% for MTSI, so the Street currently favors MTSI. 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, LSCC or MTSI?
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, LSCC or MTSI?
MTSI 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, LSCC or MTSI?
MTSI on the Momentum factor, by 13 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, LSCC or MTSI?
LSCC is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. LSCC 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 LSCC more profitable than MTSI?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 67.7% vs 56.6%; operating margin 7.6% vs 18.1%; ttm roe 4.9% vs 17.1%. LSCC leads on one measure and MTSI on two measures, 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 MTSI's lead over LSCC getting stronger or weaker?
MTSI lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 5 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 3 times in that window, most recently on 2026-09-04, when MTSI moved ahead of LSCC.
What would change the LSCC vs MTSI verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: LSCC closes the Momentum gap — currently 13 points behind, the largest single contributor to MTSI's edge; LSCC's ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; MTSI'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 LSCC and MTSI?
LSCC: 2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. MTSI: 2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. The most decision-relevant rule on LSCC is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On MTSI it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare LSCC and MTSI 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.