LUMN vs TU Stock Comparison
LUMN currently leads TU in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 45 vs 40. The clearest difference is quality, while TU has the stronger risk resilience profile.
What is the main difference between LUMN and TU?
LUMN leads the current stock comparison as Lumen Technologies, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Lumen Technologies, Inc. vs Telus Corp
LUMN leads
LUMN leads by 5 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Value, but the lead has narrowed from 8 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support LUMN, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Lumen Technologies, Inc.
Telus Corp
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors LUMN over TU, 45 versus 40 as of Oct 21, 2026. LUMN's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and value, while TU holds the stronger risk resilience profile. LUMN also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor LUMN today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 5 points. LUMN lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 8 to 5 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Lumen Technologies, Inc. and Telus Corp across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Performance over time
Total return with distributions reinvested, from daily closes.
Total return comparison
Growth of $10,000, distributions reinvested
Split-adjusted closes; each distribution is reinvested at the close on its ex-dividend date. Taxes and trading costs are not modeled.
Compare LUMN and TU 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.
- Quality52 vs 17LUMN +35
- Risk Resilience23 vs 45TU +22
- Momentum25 vs 43TU +18
- Value65 vs 59LUMN +6
3 of 6 evidence groups favor LUMN. LUMN’s edge is concentrated in quality and value; TU keeps a meaningful risk resilience edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-20, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-19.
No factor moved materially.
New signals
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum -2
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
LUMN's lead widened by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — LUMN and TU both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
LUMN (Lumen Technologies, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and value.
TU (Telus Corp): the counter-case, on risk resilience, momentum, fundamentals.
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
LUMNLUMN on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
LUMNLUMN on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
LUMNLUMN on the peer-relative Value factor, by 6 points.
Momentum
TUTU on the Momentum factor, by 18 points.
Lower downside
TUTU on Risk Resilience, by 22 points.
Analyst upside
LUMNLUMN 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 | LUMN | TU | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +79.4% | +31.3% | LUMN has more room |
| Target dispersion | 0% | +18.2% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 1 | 1 | 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 LUMN. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | LUMN | 45 vs 40 |
| Fundamentals | TUon balance | revenue growth -3.2% vs -1.4%; TTM ROE -52.1% vs -6.6%; gross margin 47.8% vs 38.9%; operating margin -3.4% vs 14.8% — TU takes 3 of 4 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | LUMN | Value 65 vs 59 |
| Technicals | TU | Price vs 50-day -25.7% vs -6.5%; vs 200-day -39.4% vs -26.6% |
| Risk Resilience | TU | Risk Resilience 23 vs 45 |
| Analyst expectations | LUMN | Target upside 79.4% vs 31.3% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of LUMN and TU 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 lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 LUMN.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20LUMN lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 8 to 5 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- LUMN +5
- 45 vs 40
- 7 sessions ago
- LUMN +6
- 45 vs 39
- 30 sessions ago
- LUMN +8
- 45 vs 37
- 90 sessions ago
- LUMN +15
- 50 vs 35
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 / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only LUMN
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (7.37%)
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
- 52-Week Low Proximity — bearish, risk, long horizon (0.0%)
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only TU
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 3 more signals that do not separate them: Bollinger Band Squeeze, Death Cross Active, Downtrend Structure Active.
LUMN 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 -0.45%, AIQ 0 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved down over the latest session (price -0.95%, 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.
- 1TU closes the Quality gap — currently 35 points behind, the largest single contributor to LUMN's edge.
- 2TU's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3LUMN'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 3 points over 30 sessions, and a further 5-point move would eliminate LUMN'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
TU leads on balance| Metric | LUMN | TU |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -3.2% | -1.4% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 0% | -14.4% |
| Gross margin | 47.8% | 38.9% |
| Operating margin | -3.4% | 14.8% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -52.1% | -6.6% |
| Debt to equity | -9.07 | 2.37 |
Performance
TU leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | LUMN | TU |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -10.2% | 5.8% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -29.8% | -1.4% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -33.1% | -17.1% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -47.3% | -31.2% |
| Year to date | -39.9% | -35.8% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -36.2% | -43.9% |
Technicals
TU has the stronger structure| Metric | LUMN | TU |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 29.3 | 51.7 |
| ADX (14) | 37.8 | 39.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | -25.7% | -6.5% |
| Price vs 200-day | -39.4% | -26.6% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 61% | 31.8% |
Risk
TU is the more resilient| Metric | LUMN | TU |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.88 | 0.01 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.21 | -2.41 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.35 | -2.77 |
| Max drawdown | -62.3% | -49.6% |
| Current drawdown | -62.1% | -44.8% |
| Annualized volatility | 79.1% | 25.1% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -6% | -2.5% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, LUMN or TU?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, LUMN is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 45 against TU's 40. The edge comes from quality and value. TU 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 LUMN or TU the better buy right now?
LUMN carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 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 LUMN over TU?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. LUMN leads Quality by 35 points; TU leads Risk Resilience by 22 points; TU leads Momentum by 18 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, LUMN or TU?
Analyst price targets imply +79.4% upside for LUMN and +31.3% for TU, so the Street currently favors LUMN. 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, LUMN or TU?
LUMN is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. LUMN on the peer-relative Value factor, by 6 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, LUMN or TU?
LUMN 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 TU?
TU on the Momentum factor, by 18 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 TU?
TU is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. TU on Risk Resilience, by 22 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 TU?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 47.8% vs 38.9%; operating margin -3.4% vs 14.8%; ttm roe -52.1% vs -6.6%. LUMN leads on one measure and TU 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 LUMN's lead over TU getting stronger or weaker?
LUMN lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 8 to 5 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the LUMN vs TU verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: TU closes the Quality gap — currently 35 points behind, the largest single contributor to LUMN's edge; TU's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; LUMN'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 3 points over 30 sessions, and a further 5-point move would eliminate LUMN's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about LUMN and TU?
LUMN: 1 bullish / 5 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted. TU: 1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, 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 LUMN is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On TU it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare LUMN and TU 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.