LUV vs NSC Stock Comparison
NSC currently leads LUV in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 57 vs 51. The clearest difference is momentum, while LUV has the stronger value profile.
What is the main difference between LUV and NSC?
NSC leads the current stock comparison as Norfolk Southern Corporation, with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Southwest Airlines Co. vs Norfolk Southern Corporation
NSC leads
NSC leads by 6 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Risk Resilience, having only recently taken the lead back from LUV. Wall Street currently favors LUV on target upside.
Fragile: 4 of 6 evidence groups support NSC, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Southwest Airlines Co.
Norfolk Southern Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors NSC over LUV, 57 versus 51 as of Oct 21, 2026. NSC's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and risk resilience, while LUV holds the stronger value profile. NSC also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors LUV. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor NSC today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. NSC lead: Reversed — LUV led by 12 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; NSC now leads by 6.
Compare Southwest Airlines Co. and Norfolk Southern Corporation 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 LUV and NSC 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.
- Momentum33 vs 71NSC +38
- Value62 vs 42LUV +20
- Risk Resilience50 vs 63NSC +13
- Quality54 vs 56Even
4 of 6 evidence groups favor NSC. NSC’s edge is concentrated in momentum and risk resilience; LUV keeps a meaningful value edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-20, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-19.
Largest factor move: Momentum +6
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +3
New signals
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
NSC's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — LUV and NSC both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
NSC (Norfolk Southern Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and risk resilience.
LUV (Southwest Airlines Co.): the counter-case, on value, valuation, analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 31.5% against 13%.
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
NSCNSC on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
NSCNSC on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
LUVLUV on the peer-relative Value factor, by 20 points.
Momentum
NSCNSC on the Momentum factor, by 38 points.
Lower downside
NSCNSC on Risk Resilience, by 13 points.
Analyst upside
LUVLUV on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors NSC, analyst targets favor LUV. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | LUV | NSC | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +30.6% | +6.7% | LUV has more room |
| Target dispersion | +55.5% | +25.7% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 10 | 7 | 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.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | LUV | NSC |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 31.95% | 7.51% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $0.180 | $3.760 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $0.720 | $5.400 |
| Years increased | — | 3 |
| No cut in window | — | Yes |
| Cohort rank | not ranked | #164 |
LUV grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 31.95% a year against NSC's 7.51%.
Yield and payout ratio shown elsewhere on this page are current values, not part of the study window.
Split-adjusted regular dividends per share, 2020–2025, excluding special dividends. Research as of Sep 19, 2026.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor NSC. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | NSC | 51 vs 57 |
| Fundamentals | NSCon balance | revenue growth 16.3% vs 15.6%; EPS growth 6.7% vs 34.2%; TTM ROE 11.3% vs 16.8%; gross margin 61% vs 53.7%; operating margin 3.5% vs 31.6% — NSC takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | LUV | Value 62 vs 42 |
| Technicals | NSC | Price vs 50-day -2.5% vs 0.4%; vs 200-day -8.8% vs 4% |
| Risk Resilience | NSC | Risk Resilience 50 vs 63 |
| Analyst expectations | LUV | Target upside 30.6% vs 6.7% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of LUV and NSC 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 moderate at 6 points.
- The lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has swung materially session to session. (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 NSC.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20NSC lead: Reversed — LUV led by 12 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; NSC now leads by 6.
- Today
- NSC +6
- 51 vs 57
- 7 sessions ago
- NSC +6
- 51 vs 57
- 30 sessions ago
- LUV +12
- 58 vs 46
- 90 sessions ago
- NSC +4
- 50 vs 54
The lead changed hands 6 times in this window, most recently on Oct 9 when NSC moved ahead of LUV.
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.
0 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral
Only LUV
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (6.33%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
3 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
Only NSC
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (4.35%)
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
NSC 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.
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.58%, AIQ +2 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.77%, 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.
- 1LUV closes the Momentum gap — currently 38 points behind, the largest single contributor to NSC's edge.
- 2LUV's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3NSC's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 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
NSC leads on balance| Metric | LUV | NSC |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 16.3% | 15.6% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 6.7% | 34.2% |
| Gross margin | 61% | 53.7% |
| Operating margin | 3.5% | 31.6% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 11.3% | 16.8% |
| Debt to equity | 0.97 | 1.02 |
Performance
NSC leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | LUV | NSC |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -2.5% | 1.4% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -5.8% | 3.7% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -16.8% | -1.6% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -3.1% | 7.7% |
| Year to date | -4.1% | 12.8% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 19.1% | 12.9% |
Technicals
NSC has the stronger structure| Metric | LUV | NSC |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 40.2 | 75.8 |
| ADX (14) | 13.5 | 26.3 |
| Price vs 50-day | -2.5% | 0.4% |
| Price vs 200-day | -8.8% | 4% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 31.5% | 13% |
Risk
NSC is the more resilient| Metric | LUV | NSC |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.62 | 0.19 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.51 | 0.48 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.94 | 0.74 |
| Max drawdown | -33.8% | -12.5% |
| Current drawdown | -27.6% | -7.8% |
| Annualized volatility | 44.4% | 20.7% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.8% | -1.9% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, LUV or NSC?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, NSC is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 57 against LUV's 51. The edge comes from momentum and risk resilience. LUV is not without a case — it holds the better value 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 LUV or NSC the better buy right now?
NSC carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 4 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor NSC over LUV?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. NSC leads Momentum by 38 points; LUV leads Value by 20 points; NSC leads Risk Resilience by 13 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, LUV or NSC?
Analyst price targets imply +30.6% upside for LUV and +6.7% for NSC, so the Street currently favors LUV. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors NSC. 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, LUV or NSC?
LUV is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. LUV on the peer-relative Value factor, by 20 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, LUV or NSC?
NSC 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, LUV or NSC?
NSC on the Momentum factor, by 38 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, LUV or NSC?
NSC is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. NSC on Risk Resilience, by 13 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 LUV more profitable than NSC?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 61% vs 53.7%; operating margin 3.5% vs 31.6%; ttm roe 11.3% vs 16.8%. LUV leads on one measure and NSC 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 NSC's lead over LUV getting stronger or weaker?
NSC lead: Reversed — LUV led by 12 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; NSC now leads by 6. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has changed hands 6 times in that window, most recently on 2026-10-09, when NSC moved ahead of LUV.
What would change the LUV vs NSC verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: LUV closes the Momentum gap — currently 38 points behind, the largest single contributor to NSC's edge; LUV's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; NSC's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 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 LUV and NSC?
LUV: 0 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral. NSC: 3 bullish / 1 bearish, 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 LUV is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On NSC it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare LUV and NSC 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.