LUMN vs T Stock Comparison
Compare LUMN and T across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between LUMN and T?
T leads the current stock comparison as AT&T Inc., with the clearest separation coming from risk resilience and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Lumen Technologies, Inc. vs AT&T Inc.
T leads
T leads by 3 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience, but the lead has narrowed from 14 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors LUMN on target upside.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support T, and its lead is narrowing.
Lumen Technologies, Inc.
AT&T Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors T over LUMN, 59 versus 56 as of Sep 11, 2026. T's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience, while LUMN holds the stronger momentum profile. T also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors LUMN. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor T today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 3 points. T lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 14 to 3 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Lumen Technologies, Inc. and AT&T 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 LUMN and T 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 Resilience23 vs 52T +29
- Momentum70 vs 66LUMN +4
- Value65 vs 62Even
- Quality52 vs 54Even
3 of 6 evidence groups favor T. T’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience; LUMN 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.
Largest factor move: Momentum +3
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum +4
No new signals fired.
T's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — LUMN and T both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
T (AT&T Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience.
LUMN (Lumen Technologies, Inc.): the counter-case, on momentum, analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 52.7% against 18.7%.
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
TT on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
TT on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
LUMNLUMN on the Momentum factor, by 4 points.
Lower downside
TT on Risk Resilience, by 29 points.
Analyst upside
LUMNLUMN on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors T, analyst targets favor LUMN. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | LUMN | T | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +15.3% | -2.1% | LUMN has more room |
| Target dispersion | 0% | +47% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 1 | 8 | 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 T. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | Even | 56 vs 59 |
| Fundamentals | T | TTM ROE -52.1% vs 19.5%; gross margin 47.8% vs 59.7%; operating margin -3.4% vs 20.4% |
| Valuation | Even | Value 65 vs 62 |
| Technicals | T | Price vs 50-day 8.2% vs 9.7%; vs 200-day -11.9% vs 1.6% |
| Risk Resilience | T | Risk Resilience 23 vs 52 |
| Analyst expectations | LUMN | Target upside 15.3% vs -2.1% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of LUMN and T 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 3 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)
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 T.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10T lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 14 to 3 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- T +3
- 56 vs 59
- 7 sessions ago
- T +8
- 53 vs 61
- 30 sessions ago
- T +14
- 48 vs 62
- 90 sessions ago
- T +3
- 44 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 / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (20.56%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (5.22%)
0 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (5.86%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
LUMN is conflicted, so the timing case there is weaker than the score alone suggests.
Price vs model alignment
Whether the latest session's price move confirms what the model did over the same session, or contradicts it.
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +1.91%, AIQ +1 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +2%, 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.
- 1LUMN closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 29 points behind, the largest single contributor to T's edge.
- 2LUMN's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3T starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 11 points over 30 sessions, and a further 3-point move would eliminate T'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
T leads on balance| Metric | LUMN | T |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -3.2% | 0.2% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 0% | 22.2% |
| Gross margin | 47.8% | 59.7% |
| Operating margin | -3.4% | 20.4% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -52.1% | 19.5% |
| Debt to equity | -9.07 | 1.47 |
Performance
LUMN leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | LUMN | T |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 0% | -1.5% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 8.3% | 5.4% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -17.6% | 10.1% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 2.4% | -5.9% |
| Year to date | -12.4% | 2.9% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 33% | -11.6% |
Technicals
T has the stronger structure| Metric | LUMN | T |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 68 | 55.4 |
| ADX (14) | 16 | 32.2 |
| Price vs 50-day | 8.2% | 9.7% |
| Price vs 200-day | -11.9% | 1.6% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 52.7% | 18.7% |
Risk
T is the more resilient| Metric | LUMN | T |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.87 | -0.33 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.58 | -0.59 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.95 | -0.91 |
| Max drawdown | -52.1% | -30.9% |
| Current drawdown | -42.4% | -13.7% |
| Annualized volatility | 80% | 25.1% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -6% | -2.6% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, LUMN or T?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, T is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 59 against LUMN's 56. The edge comes from risk resilience. LUMN 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 LUMN or T the better buy right now?
T 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 3 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor T over LUMN?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. T leads Risk Resilience by 29 points; LUMN leads Momentum by 4 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, LUMN or T?
Analyst price targets imply +15.3% upside for LUMN and -2.1% for T, so the Street currently favors LUMN. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors T. 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, LUMN or T?
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, LUMN or T?
T 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, LUMN or T?
LUMN on the Momentum factor, by 4 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, LUMN or T?
T is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. T on Risk Resilience, by 29 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 LUMN more profitable than T?
T leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 47.8% vs 59.7%; operating margin -3.4% vs 20.4%; ttm roe -52.1% vs 19.5%.
Is T's lead over LUMN getting stronger or weaker?
T lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 14 to 3 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 LUMN vs T verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: LUMN closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 29 points behind, the largest single contributor to T's edge; LUMN's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; t starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 11 points over 30 sessions, and a further 3-point move would eliminate T's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about LUMN and T?
LUMN: 1 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted. T: 0 bullish / 2 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 LUMN is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On T it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare LUMN and T 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.