LW vs MKC Stock Comparison
Compare LW and MKC across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between LW and MKC?
MKC leads the current stock comparison as McCormick & Company, Incorporated, with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Lamb Weston Holdings, Inc. vs McCormick & Company, Incorporated
MKC leads
MKC leads by 8 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Risk Resilience, but the lead has narrowed from 12 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support MKC, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Lamb Weston Holdings, Inc.
McCormick & Company, Incorporated
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors MKC over LW, 45 versus 37 as of Sep 11, 2026. MKC's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and risk resilience, while LW holds the stronger value profile. MKC also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor MKC today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. MKC lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 12 to 8 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Lamb Weston Holdings, Inc. and McCormick & Company, Incorporated 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 LW and MKC 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.
- Quality25 vs 62MKC +37
- Value52 vs 44LW +8
- Momentum28 vs 23LW +5
- Risk Resilience46 vs 51MKC +5
3 of 6 evidence groups favor MKC. MKC’s edge is concentrated in quality and risk resilience; LW keeps a meaningful value 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 -1
No new signals fired.
No factor moved materially.
New signals
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
MKC's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — LW and MKC both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
MKC (McCormick & Company, Incorporated): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and risk resilience.
LW (Lamb Weston Holdings, Inc.): the counter-case, on value, momentum, valuation.
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
MKCMKC on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
EvenGrowth figures are not covered for both names.
Value
LWLW on the peer-relative Value factor, by 8 points.
Momentum
LWLW on the Momentum factor, by 5 points.
Lower downside
MKCMKC on Risk Resilience, by 5 points.
Analyst upside
EvenAnalyst targets are level or not covered for both names.
AIQ vs Wall Street
Where the systematic read and the analyst consensus line up — and where they do not.
| Measure | LW | MKC | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +11.7% | +11.5% | Level |
| Target dispersion | +16.8% | +29.7% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 7 | 4 | 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 MKC. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | MKC | 37 vs 45 |
| Fundamentals | MKC | TTM ROE 16.1% vs 25.6%; gross margin 20.6% vs 38.6%; operating margin 8.9% vs 15.3% |
| Valuation | LW | Value 52 vs 44 |
| Technicals | LW | Price vs 50-day -5.6% vs -2.9%; vs 200-day 0.7% vs -10.2% |
| Risk Resilience | MKC | Risk Resilience 46 vs 51 |
| Analyst expectations | Even | Target upside 11.7% vs 11.5% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of LW and MKC 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 8 points.
- 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)
- Signal direction runs against the verdict: the leader is net-bearish while the laggard is net-bullish. (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 MKC.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10MKC lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 12 to 8 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- MKC +8
- 37 vs 45
- 7 sessions ago
- MKC +9
- 39 vs 48
- 30 sessions ago
- MKC +12
- 46 vs 58
- 90 sessions ago
- MKC +11
- 45 vs 56
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.
3 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (7.95%)
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
1 bullish / 4 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (7.60%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
MKC 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 +1.12%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.43%, 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.
- 1LW closes the Quality gap — currently 37 points behind, the largest single contributor to MKC's edge.
- 2LW's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3MKC's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 4 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 4 points over 30 sessions, and a further 8-point move would eliminate MKC'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
MKC leads on balance| Metric | LW | MKC |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | — | 3.3% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | — | -85.2% |
| Gross margin | 20.6% | 38.6% |
| Operating margin | 8.9% | 15.3% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 16.1% | 25.6% |
| Debt to equity | 2.16 | 0.71 |
Performance
LW leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | LW | MKC |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -9.7% | -5% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -10.9% | -3.5% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 7.2% | 2.8% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 8.9% | -14.7% |
| Year to date | 13% | -25% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -17.8% | -27.2% |
Technicals
LW has the stronger structure| Metric | LW | MKC |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 20.1 | 27.1 |
| ADX (14) | 23.9 | 19.9 |
| Price vs 50-day | -5.6% | -2.9% |
| Price vs 200-day | 0.7% | -10.2% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 27.8% | 26.5% |
Risk
MKC is the more resilient| Metric | LW | MKC |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.28 | -0.35 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.32 | -1 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.33 | -1.47 |
| Max drawdown | -42% | -36.4% |
| Current drawdown | -28.7% | -28.7% |
| Annualized volatility | 41.6% | 30.3% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3% | -3.2% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, LW or MKC?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, MKC is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 45 against LW's 37. The edge comes from quality and risk resilience. LW 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 LW or MKC the better buy right now?
MKC 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: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor MKC over LW?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. MKC leads Quality by 37 points; LW leads Value by 8 points; LW leads Momentum by 5 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, LW or MKC?
Analyst price targets imply +11.7% upside for LW and +11.5% for MKC. 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, LW or MKC?
LW is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. LW on the peer-relative Value factor, by 8 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, LW or MKC?
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, LW or MKC?
LW on the Momentum factor, by 5 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, LW or MKC?
MKC is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. MKC on Risk Resilience, by 5 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 LW more profitable than MKC?
MKC leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 20.6% vs 38.6%; operating margin 8.9% vs 15.3%; ttm roe 16.1% vs 25.6%.
Is MKC's lead over LW getting stronger or weaker?
MKC lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 12 to 8 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 LW vs MKC verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: LW closes the Quality gap — currently 37 points behind, the largest single contributor to MKC's edge; LW's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it; MKC's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 4 bearish rules at once; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 4 points over 30 sessions, and a further 8-point move would eliminate MKC's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about LW and MKC?
LW: 3 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted. MKC: 1 bullish / 4 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 LW is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On MKC it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare LW and MKC 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.