LULU vs MAT Stock Comparison
Compare LULU and MAT across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
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 quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Lululemon Athletica Inc. vs Mattel, Inc.
LULU leads
LULU leads by 5 AIQ points, primarily on Quality, but the lead has narrowed from 11 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support LULU, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Lululemon Athletica Inc.
Mattel, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors LULU over MAT, 55 versus 50 as of Sep 11, 2026. LULU's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality, while MAT holds the stronger momentum profile. LULU also shows the weaker 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: the AIQ gap is narrow at 5 points. LULU lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 11 to 5 points over 30 sessions.
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 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 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.
- Quality80 vs 51LULU +29
- Momentum20 vs 30MAT +10
- Risk Resilience50 vs 57MAT +7
- Value63 vs 62Even
3 of 6 evidence groups favor LULU. LULU’s edge is concentrated in quality; MAT keeps a meaningful momentum edge.
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 -2
No new signals fired.
LULU's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
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 quality.
MAT (Mattel, Inc.): the counter-case, on momentum, risk resilience, 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
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
MATMAT on the Momentum factor, by 10 points.
Lower downside
MATMAT on Risk Resilience, by 7 points.
Analyst upside
LULULULU 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 | LULU | MAT | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +11.1% | +7.1% | LULU has more room |
| Target dispersion | +59.1% | +40% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 11 | 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 | 55 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 -15.8% vs -2.9%; vs 200-day -36% vs -16.1% |
| Risk Resilience | MAT | Risk Resilience 50 vs 57 |
| Analyst expectations | LULU | Target upside 11.1% vs 7.1% |
✓ 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 narrow at 5 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (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: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 11 to 5 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- LULU +5
- 55 vs 50
- 7 sessions ago
- LULU +1
- 57 vs 56
- 30 sessions ago
- LULU +11
- 65 vs 54
- 90 sessions ago
- LULU +12
- 62 vs 50
The lead changed hands 6 times in this window, most recently on May 18 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 / 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
0 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (14.07%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long 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).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +1.45%, AIQ 0 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 Quality gap — currently 29 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 5 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 6 points over 30 sessions, and a further 5-point move would eliminate LULU's advantage entirely.
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 6 of 6 windows| Metric | LULU | MAT |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -17.4% | -5.7% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -19.8% | -5.7% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -18.5% | -6% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -40.5% | -14.3% |
| Year to date | -50.3% | -30.4% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -42.4% | -25.4% |
Technicals
MAT has the stronger structure| Metric | LULU | MAT |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 33.6 | 37 |
| ADX (14) | 18.4 | 22.2 |
| Price vs 50-day | -15.8% | -2.9% |
| Price vs 200-day | -36% | -16.1% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 74% | 29.3% |
Risk
MAT is the more resilient| Metric | LULU | MAT |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.24 | 0.63 |
| Sharpe ratio | -1.05 | -0.61 |
| Sortino ratio | -1.3 | -0.65 |
| Max drawdown | -55.1% | -41.1% |
| Current drawdown | -55.1% | -37.7% |
| Annualized volatility | 45.1% | 39.2% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -4.2% | -3.1% |
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 Sep 11, 2026, scoring 55 against MAT's 50. The edge comes from quality. MAT is not without a case — it holds the better momentum 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 LULU or MAT 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: the AIQ gap is narrow at 5 points. 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 Quality by 29 points; MAT leads Momentum by 10 points; MAT leads Risk Resilience by 7 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 +11.1% upside for LULU and +7.1% for MAT, so the Street currently favors LULU. 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?
MAT on the Momentum factor, by 10 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?
MAT is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. MAT on Risk Resilience, by 7 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: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 11 to 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 6 times in that window, most recently on 2026-05-18, 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 Quality gap — currently 29 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 5 bearish rules at once; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 6 points over 30 sessions, and a further 5-point move would eliminate LULU's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about LULU and MAT?
LULU: 1 bullish / 5 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. MAT: 0 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 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.