LW vs MNST Stock Comparison
Compare LW and MNST across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between LW and MNST?
MNST leads the current stock comparison as Monster Beverage Corporation, with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Lamb Weston Holdings, Inc. vs Monster Beverage Corporation
MNST leads
MNST leads by 11 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Risk Resilience.
Competitive: 4 of 6 evidence groups support MNST, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Lamb Weston Holdings, Inc.
Monster Beverage Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors MNST over LW, 48 versus 37 as of Sep 11, 2026. MNST's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and risk resilience, while LW holds the stronger value profile. MNST also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor MNST today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability. MNST lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 11 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Lamb Weston Holdings, Inc. and Monster Beverage Corporation 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 MNST 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 80MNST +55
- Value52 vs 24LW +28
- Risk Resilience46 vs 62MNST +16
- Momentum28 vs 29Even
4 of 6 evidence groups favor MNST. MNST’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.
Largest factor move: Risk Resilience +1
No new signals fired.
MNST's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — LW and MNST both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
MNST (Monster Beverage Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and risk resilience.
LW (Lamb Weston Holdings, Inc.): the counter-case, on value, valuation, technicals.
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
MNSTMNST 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 28 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
MNSTMNST on Risk Resilience, by 16 points.
Analyst upside
MNSTMNST 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 | LW | MNST | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +11.7% | +124.3% | MNST has more room |
| Target dispersion | +16.8% | +19.5% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 7 | 9 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor MNST. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | MNST | 37 vs 48 |
| Fundamentals | MNST | TTM ROE 16.1% vs 25%; gross margin 20.6% vs 55.5%; operating margin 8.9% vs 29.2% |
| Valuation | LW | Value 52 vs 24 |
| Technicals | LW | Price vs 50-day -5.6% vs -41.3%; vs 200-day 0.7% vs -32.9% |
| Risk Resilience | MNST | Risk Resilience 46 vs 62 |
| Analyst expectations | MNST | Target upside 11.7% vs 124.3% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of LW and MNST and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
- The AIQ gap is moderate at 11 points.
- 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 MNST.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10MNST lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 11 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- MNST +11
- 37 vs 48
- 7 sessions ago
- MNST +12
- 39 vs 51
- 30 sessions ago
- MNST +13
- 46 vs 59
- 90 sessions ago
- MNST +20
- 45 vs 65
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
3 bullish / 0 bearish / 2 neutral
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (15.09%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
LW 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 +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 +0.72%, 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 55 points behind, the largest single contributor to MNST's edge.
- 2LW's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3MNST'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
MNST leads on balance| Metric | LW | MNST |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | — | 7.8% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | — | 3.4% |
| Gross margin | 20.6% | 55.5% |
| Operating margin | 8.9% | 29.2% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 16.1% | 25% |
| Debt to equity | 2.16 | 0 |
Performance
MNST leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | LW | MNST |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -9.7% | -3% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -10.9% | -6.3% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 7.2% | -51.2% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 8.9% | 11.2% |
| Year to date | 13% | 12.4% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -17.8% | 36.8% |
Technicals
LW has the stronger structure| Metric | LW | MNST |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 20.1 | 22.8 |
| ADX (14) | 23.9 | 60.7 |
| Price vs 50-day | -5.6% | -41.3% |
| Price vs 200-day | 0.7% | -32.9% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 27.8% | 26.8% |
Risk
MNST is the more resilient| Metric | LW | MNST |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.28 | -0.64 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.32 | 0.7 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.33 | 1.05 |
| Max drawdown | -42% | -57.1% |
| Current drawdown | -28.7% | -56.9% |
| Annualized volatility | 41.6% | 114.2% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3% | -2.5% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, LW or MNST?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, MNST is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 48 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 MNST the better buy right now?
MNST carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 4 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Competitive rating means the two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
Why does the AIQ Score favor MNST over LW?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. MNST leads Quality by 55 points; LW leads Value by 28 points; MNST leads Risk Resilience by 16 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, LW or MNST?
Analyst price targets imply +11.7% upside for LW and +124.3% for MNST, so the Street currently favors MNST. 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 MNST?
LW is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. LW on the peer-relative Value factor, by 28 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 MNST?
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 MNST?
The two are level on Momentum. 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 MNST?
MNST is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. MNST on Risk Resilience, by 16 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 MNST?
MNST leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 20.6% vs 55.5%; operating margin 8.9% vs 29.2%; ttm roe 16.1% vs 25%.
Is MNST's lead over LW getting stronger or weaker?
MNST lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 11 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 MNST verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: LW closes the Quality gap — currently 55 points behind, the largest single contributor to MNST's edge; LW's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it; MNST'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 LW and MNST?
LW: 3 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted. MNST: 3 bullish / 0 bearish / 2 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 LW is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On MNST it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare LW and MNST 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.