LULU vs LOW Stock Comparison
Compare LULU and LOW across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between LULU and LOW?
LULU leads the current stock comparison as Lululemon Athletica Inc., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Lululemon Athletica Inc. vs Lowe's Companies, Inc.
LULU leads
LULU leads by 13 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Value. Wall Street currently favors LOW on target upside.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support LULU, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Lululemon Athletica Inc.
Lowe's Companies, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors LULU over LOW, 55 versus 42 as of Sep 11, 2026. LULU's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and value. LULU also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors LOW. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor LULU today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. LULU lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 13 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Lululemon Athletica Inc. and Lowe's Companies, 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 LULU and LOW 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.
- Quality80 vs 45LULU +35
- Value63 vs 53LULU +10
- Risk Resilience50 vs 53Even
- Momentum20 vs 20Even
3 of 6 evidence groups favor LULU. LULU’s edge is concentrated in quality and value.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-10, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-09.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum -1
No new signals fired.
LULU's lead widened by 1 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — LULU and LOW both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
LULU (Lululemon Athletica Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and value.
LOW (Lowe's Companies, Inc.): the counter-case, on technicals, analyst expectations.
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
LULULULU on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
LOWLOW on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
LULULULU on the peer-relative Value factor, by 10 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
LOWLOW carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
LOWLOW on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors LULU, analyst targets favor LOW. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | LULU | LOW | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +11.1% | +31.9% | LOW has more room |
| Target dispersion | +59.1% | +18.5% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 11 | 7 | 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 LULU. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | LULU | 55 vs 42 |
| Fundamentals | LULUon balance | revenue growth -32.1% vs 12.5%; EPS growth -66% vs 47.6%; TTM ROE 31.3% vs -71.8%; gross margin 55.7% vs 33.1%; operating margin 18.2% vs 11.4% — LULU takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | LULU | Value 63 vs 53 |
| Technicals | LOW | Price vs 50-day -15.8% vs -7.2%; vs 200-day -36% vs -16.6% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 50 vs 53 |
| Analyst expectations | LOW | Target upside 11.1% vs 31.9% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of LULU and LOW 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 wide at 13 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (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 LULU.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10LULU lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 13 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- LULU +13
- 55 vs 42
- 7 sessions ago
- LULU +14
- 57 vs 43
- 30 sessions ago
- LULU +12
- 65 vs 53
- 90 sessions ago
- LULU +15
- 62 vs 47
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 / 5 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (29.21%)
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
1 bullish / 5 bearish, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (11.24%)
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
LULU 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 +2.16%, AIQ 0 points).
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +0.12%, 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.
- 1LOW closes the Quality gap — currently 35 points behind, the largest single contributor to LULU's edge.
- 2LOW's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3LULU's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 5 bearish rules at once.
- 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
LULU leads on balance| Metric | LULU | LOW |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -32.1% | 12.5% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -66% | 47.6% |
| Gross margin | 55.7% | 33.1% |
| Operating margin | 18.2% | 11.4% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 31.3% | -71.8% |
| Debt to equity | 0.44 | -5.65 |
Performance
LOW leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | LULU | LOW |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -17.4% | -1.6% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -19.8% | -9% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -18.5% | -9.1% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -40.5% | -20.4% |
| Year to date | -50.3% | -17% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -42.4% | -27.1% |
Technicals
LOW has the stronger structure| Metric | LULU | LOW |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 33.6 | 19.8 |
| ADX (14) | 18.4 | 15.9 |
| Price vs 50-day | -15.8% | -7.2% |
| Price vs 200-day | -36% | -16.6% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 74% | 19.5% |
Risk
Split| Metric | LULU | LOW |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.24 | 0.64 |
| Sharpe ratio | -1.05 | -1.17 |
| Sortino ratio | -1.3 | -2.07 |
| Max drawdown | -55.1% | -31.6% |
| Current drawdown | -55.1% | -31.6% |
| Annualized volatility | 45.1% | 27.1% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -4.2% | -2.7% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, LULU or LOW?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, LULU is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 55 against LOW's 42. The edge comes from quality and value. 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 LULU or LOW the better buy right now?
LULU 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: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor LULU over LOW?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. LULU leads Quality by 35 points; LULU leads Value by 10 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, LULU or LOW?
Analyst price targets imply +11.1% upside for LULU and +31.9% for LOW, so the Street currently favors LOW. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors LULU. 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, LULU or LOW?
LULU is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. LULU on the peer-relative Value factor, by 10 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, LULU or LOW?
LOW 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, LULU or LOW?
The two are level on Momentum. 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, LULU or LOW?
LOW is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. LOW carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility. Risk Resilience is a weighted factor in the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is LULU more profitable than LOW?
LULU leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 55.7% vs 33.1%; operating margin 18.2% vs 11.4%; ttm roe 31.3% vs -71.8%.
Is LULU's lead over LOW getting stronger or weaker?
LULU lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 13 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the LULU vs LOW verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: LOW closes the Quality gap — currently 35 points behind, the largest single contributor to LULU's edge; LOW's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; LULU's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 5 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 LULU and LOW?
LULU: 1 bullish / 5 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. LOW: 1 bullish / 5 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 LULU is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On LOW it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare LULU and LOW 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.