LUMN vs VZ Stock Comparison
VZ currently leads LUMN in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 47 vs 45. The clearest difference is momentum, while LUMN has the stronger quality profile.
What is the main difference between LUMN and VZ?
VZ leads the current stock comparison as Verizon Communications Inc., with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Lumen Technologies, Inc. vs Verizon Communications Inc.
VZ leads
VZ leads by 2 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Risk Resilience. Wall Street currently favors LUMN on target upside.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support VZ, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Lumen Technologies, Inc.
Verizon Communications Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors VZ over LUMN, 47 versus 45 as of Oct 21, 2026. VZ's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and risk resilience, while LUMN holds the stronger quality profile. VZ 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 VZ today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. VZ lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 2 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Lumen Technologies, Inc. and Verizon Communications Inc. 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 VZ 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.
- Momentum25 vs 36VZ +11
- Risk Resilience23 vs 34VZ +11
- Quality52 vs 45LUMN +7
- Value65 vs 64Even
3 of 6 evidence groups favor VZ. VZ’s edge is concentrated in momentum and risk resilience; LUMN keeps a meaningful quality 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
New signals
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
VZ'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 VZ both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
VZ (Verizon Communications Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and risk resilience.
LUMN (Lumen Technologies, Inc.): the counter-case, on quality, analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 61% against 41.3%.
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
VZVZ on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
LUMNLUMN on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
VZVZ on the Momentum factor, by 11 points.
Lower downside
VZVZ on Risk Resilience, by 11 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 VZ, analyst targets favor LUMN. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | LUMN | VZ | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +79.4% | +10.2% | LUMN has more room |
| Target dispersion | 0% | +19.8% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 1 | 6 | 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 VZ. 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 | 45 vs 47 |
| Fundamentals | VZ | TTM ROE -52.1% vs 15.5%; gross margin 47.8% vs 59.1%; operating margin -3.4% vs 20.5% |
| Valuation | Even | Value 65 vs 64 |
| Technicals | VZ | Price vs 50-day -25.7% vs -8.7%; vs 200-day -39.4% vs -4.5% |
| Risk Resilience | VZ | Risk Resilience 23 vs 34 |
| Analyst expectations | LUMN | Target upside 79.4% vs 10.2% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of LUMN and VZ 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 2 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's signal state is cleanly positive. (supports the conclusion holding)
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 VZ.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20VZ lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 2 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- VZ +2
- 45 vs 47
- 7 sessions ago
- Level
- 45 vs 45
- 30 sessions ago
- Level
- 45 vs 45
- 90 sessions ago
- VZ +4
- 50 vs 54
The lead changed hands 3 times in this window, most recently on Oct 9 when LUMN moved ahead of VZ.
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
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (23.20%)
- 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%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
Only VZ
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (2.28%)
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 1 more signal that do not separate them: Bollinger Band Squeeze.
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.
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 is down while the AIQ Score moved up 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -2.2%, 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 Momentum gap — currently 11 points behind, the largest single contributor to VZ's edge.
- 2LUMN's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3VZ's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict.
- 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
VZ leads on balance| Metric | LUMN | VZ |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -3.2% | -0.5% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 0% | -23.3% |
| Gross margin | 47.8% | 59.1% |
| Operating margin | -3.4% | 20.5% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -52.1% | 15.5% |
| Debt to equity | -9.07 | 1.81 |
Performance
VZ leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | LUMN | VZ |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -10.2% | 2.3% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -29.8% | -4.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -33.1% | 0.6% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -47.3% | -3.7% |
| Year to date | -39.9% | 9.4% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -36.2% | 10.4% |
Technicals
VZ has the stronger structure| Metric | LUMN | VZ |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 29.3 | 43.4 |
| ADX (14) | 37.8 | 31.3 |
| Price vs 50-day | -25.7% | -8.7% |
| Price vs 200-day | -39.4% | -4.5% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 61% | 41.3% |
Risk
VZ is the more resilient| Metric | LUMN | VZ |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.88 | -0.37 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.21 | 0.34 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.35 | 0.46 |
| Max drawdown | -62.3% | -19.1% |
| Current drawdown | -62.1% | -13.4% |
| Annualized volatility | 79.1% | 27.4% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -6% | -2.4% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, LUMN or VZ?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, VZ is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 47 against LUMN's 45. The edge comes from momentum and risk resilience. LUMN is not without a case — it holds the better quality 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 VZ the better buy right now?
VZ 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 2 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor VZ over LUMN?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. VZ leads Momentum by 11 points; VZ leads Risk Resilience by 11 points; LUMN leads Quality by 7 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, LUMN or VZ?
Analyst price targets imply +79.4% upside for LUMN and +10.2% for VZ, so the Street currently favors LUMN. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors VZ. 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 VZ?
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 VZ?
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 VZ?
VZ on the Momentum factor, by 11 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 VZ?
VZ is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. VZ 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 LUMN more profitable than VZ?
VZ leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 47.8% vs 59.1%; operating margin -3.4% vs 20.5%; ttm roe -52.1% vs 15.5%.
Is VZ's lead over LUMN getting stronger or weaker?
VZ lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 2 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has changed hands 3 times in that window, most recently on 2026-10-09, when LUMN moved ahead of VZ.
What would change the LUMN vs VZ verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: LUMN closes the Momentum gap — currently 11 points behind, the largest single contributor to VZ's edge; LUMN's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; VZ's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict; 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 LUMN and VZ?
LUMN: 1 bullish / 5 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted. VZ: 2 bullish / 0 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 VZ it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare LUMN and VZ 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.