LULU vs MAT Stock Comparison
LULU currently leads MAT in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 70 vs 50. The clearest difference is momentum.
What is the main difference between LULU and MAT?
LULU leads the current stock comparison as Lululemon Athletica Inc., with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Lululemon Athletica Inc. vs Mattel, Inc.
LULU leads
LULU leads by 20 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Quality, having only recently taken the lead back from MAT.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support LULU, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Lululemon Athletica Inc.
Mattel, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors LULU over MAT, 70 versus 50 as of Oct 31, 2026. LULU's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and quality. LULU also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 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: Reversed — MAT led by 2 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; LULU now leads by 20.
Compare Lululemon Athletica Inc. and Mattel, Inc. across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Performance over time
Price return from daily closes; distributions are not included.
Price return comparison
Growth of $10,000, price only
Split-adjusted closes only. Distributions are excluded, which understates the return of any fund or stock that pays them.
Compare LULU and MAT 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.
- Momentum75 vs 38LULU +37
- Quality80 vs 51LULU +29
- Risk Resilience56 vs 45LULU +11
- Value63 vs 62Even
3 of 6 evidence groups favor LULU. LULU’s edge is concentrated in momentum and quality.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-28, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-27.
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum -5
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
LULU's lead widened by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — LULU and MAT both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
LULU (Lululemon Athletica Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and quality.
MAT (Mattel, Inc.): the counter-case, on technicals — but at materially higher volatility, 74.8% against 46.1%.
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
EvenGrowth figures are not covered for both names.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
LULULULU on the Momentum factor, by 37 points.
Lower downside
LULULULU on Risk Resilience, by 11 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 | LULU | MAT | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +0.8% | +0.5% | Level |
| Target dispersion | +69.4% | +51.6% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 12 | 3 | 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 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 | 70 vs 50 |
| Fundamentals | LULUon balance | revenue growth -32.1% vs 30.5%; EPS growth -66% vs -128.6%; TTM ROE 31.3% vs 19.9%; gross margin 55.7% vs 47.4%; operating margin 18.2% vs 8.5% — LULU takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | Even | Value 63 vs 62 |
| Technicals | MAT | Price vs 50-day 3.7% vs 3.2%; vs 200-day -21.9% vs -1.6% |
| Risk Resilience | LULU | Risk Resilience 56 vs 45 |
| Analyst expectations | Even | Target upside 0.8% vs 0.5% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of LULU and MAT 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 20 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 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 LULU.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 29 – Oct 28LULU lead: Reversed — MAT led by 2 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; LULU now leads by 20.
- Today
- LULU +20
- 70 vs 50
- 7 sessions ago
- LULU +7
- 65 vs 58
- 30 sessions ago
- MAT +2
- 58 vs 60
- 90 sessions ago
- LULU +1
- 60 vs 59
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on Oct 15 when LULU moved ahead of MAT.
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
Only LULU
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
0 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral
Only MAT
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: Death Cross Active, ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode.
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 -2.35%, AIQ 0 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved down over the latest session (price -0.39%, 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.
- 1MAT closes the Momentum gap — currently 37 points behind, the largest single contributor to LULU's edge.
- 2MAT'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 1 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 | MAT |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -32.1% | 30.5% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -66% | -128.6% |
| Gross margin | 55.7% | 47.4% |
| Operating margin | 18.2% | 8.5% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 31.3% | 19.9% |
| Debt to equity | 0.44 | 1.37 |
Performance
MAT leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | LULU | MAT |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 9% | -9.9% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 9.4% | 20.7% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -11.9% | 0.5% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -23.8% | 2.6% |
| Year to date | -49.4% | -23% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -40.9% | -17.2% |
Technicals
MAT has the stronger structure| Metric | LULU | MAT |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 68.1 | 30.3 |
| ADX (14) | 22.1 | 34.4 |
| Price vs 50-day | 3.7% | 3.2% |
| Price vs 200-day | -21.9% | -1.6% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 46.1% | 74.8% |
Risk
LULU is the more resilient| Metric | LULU | MAT |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.21 | 0.55 |
| Sharpe ratio | -1.02 | -0.4 |
| Sortino ratio | -1.3 | -0.47 |
| Max drawdown | -57.4% | -42.9% |
| Current drawdown | -51.3% | -31.1% |
| Annualized volatility | 46.1% | 43.1% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -4.2% | -3.2% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, LULU or MAT?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, LULU is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 70 against MAT's 50. The edge comes from momentum 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 LULU or MAT the better buy right now?
LULU carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 31, 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 MAT?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. LULU leads Momentum by 37 points; LULU leads Quality by 29 points; LULU leads Risk Resilience by 11 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, LULU or MAT?
Analyst price targets imply +0.8% upside for LULU and +0.5% for MAT. 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, LULU or MAT?
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, LULU or MAT?
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, LULU or MAT?
LULU on the Momentum factor, by 37 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, LULU or MAT?
LULU is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. LULU on Risk Resilience, by 11 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 LULU more profitable than MAT?
LULU leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 55.7% vs 47.4%; operating margin 18.2% vs 8.5%; ttm roe 31.3% vs 19.9%.
Is LULU's lead over MAT getting stronger or weaker?
LULU lead: Reversed — MAT led by 2 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; LULU now leads by 20. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-29 and 2026-10-28. The lead has changed hands 2 times in that window, most recently on 2026-10-15, when LULU moved ahead of MAT.
What would change the LULU vs MAT verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: MAT closes the Momentum gap — currently 37 points behind, the largest single contributor to LULU's edge; MAT'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 1 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 MAT?
LULU: 1 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. MAT: 0 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral. 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 MAT it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare LULU and MAT 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.