LW vs MO Stock Comparison
MO currently leads LW in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 55 vs 48. The clearest difference is quality, while LW has the stronger momentum profile.
What is the main difference between LW and MO?
MO leads the current stock comparison as Altria Group, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Lamb Weston Holdings, Inc. vs Altria Group, Inc.
MO leads
MO leads by 7 AIQ points, primarily on Quality, but the lead has narrowed from 12 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors LW on target upside.
Fragile: 2 of 6 evidence groups support MO, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Lamb Weston Holdings, Inc.
Altria Group, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors MO over LW, 55 versus 48 as of Oct 31, 2026. MO's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality, while LW holds the stronger momentum profile. MO also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors LW. 2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor MO today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. MO lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 12 to 7 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Lamb Weston Holdings, Inc. and Altria Group, 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 LW and MO 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 60MO +35
- Momentum75 vs 67LW +8
- Value52 vs 47LW +5
- Risk Resilience39 vs 42Even
2 of 6 evidence groups favor MO. MO’s edge is concentrated in quality; LW keeps a meaningful momentum edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-28, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-27.
Largest factor move: Momentum -4
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum -8
New signals
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
MO's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — LW and MO both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
MO (Altria Group, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality.
LW (Lamb Weston Holdings, Inc.): the counter-case, on momentum, value, valuation — but at materially higher volatility, 45% against 22.3%.
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
MOMO 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 5 points.
Momentum
LWLW on the Momentum factor, by 8 points.
Lower downside
MOMO carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
LWLW on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors MO, analyst targets favor LW. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | LW | MO | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -0.4% | -16.2% | LW has more room |
| Target dispersion | +18.6% | +32.1% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 7 | 4 | 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 | LW | MO |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 9.98% | 4.12% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $0.920 | $3.400 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $1.480 | $4.160 |
| Years increased | 5 | 5 |
| No cut in window | Yes | Yes |
| Cohort rank | #104 | #283 |
LW grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 9.98% a year against MO's 4.12%. Neither company reduced its regular dividend in any year of the window.
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
2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor MO. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | MO | 48 vs 55 |
| Fundamentals | MOon balance | TTM ROE 16.1% vs -265.2%; gross margin 20.6% vs 71%; operating margin 8.9% vs 55.9% — MO takes 2 of 3 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | LW | Value 52 vs 47 |
| Technicals | LW | Price vs 50-day 8.4% vs 11.4%; vs 200-day 15.1% vs 6.2% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 39 vs 42 |
| Analyst expectations | LW | Target upside -0.4% vs -16.2% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of LW and MO 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 7 points.
- Only 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (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 MO.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 29 – Oct 28MO lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 12 to 7 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- MO +7
- 48 vs 55
- 7 sessions ago
- MO +9
- 49 vs 58
- 30 sessions ago
- MO +12
- 42 vs 54
- 90 sessions ago
- MO +1
- 50 vs 51
The lead changed hands once in this window, most recently on Jul 30 when LW moved ahead of MO.
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.
4 bullish / 0 bearish
Only LW
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
3 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
Only MO
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 3 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish, Uptrend Structure Active.
MO 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 is up while the AIQ Score moved down 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +1.48%, AIQ -1 points).
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 2 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +1.67%, AIQ -2 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 35 points behind, the largest single contributor to MO's edge.
- 2LW's existing bullish trend signals translate into factor-score gains — the rules are already firing, but the scores have not yet followed.
- 3MO's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 5 points over 30 sessions, and a further 7-point move would eliminate MO'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
MO leads on balance| Metric | LW | MO |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | — | 12.6% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | — | 5.4% |
| Gross margin | 20.6% | 71% |
| Operating margin | 8.9% | 55.9% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 16.1% | -265.2% |
| Debt to equity | 2.16 | -9.21 |
Performance
LW leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | LW | MO |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 0.7% | -1.1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 24.3% | 8.4% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -0.1% | 7.4% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 24.3% | 7% |
| Year to date | 27.7% | 26.6% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -19.4% | 12.9% |
Technicals
LW has the stronger structure| Metric | LW | MO |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 64.7 | 56.7 |
| ADX (14) | 37.9 | 22 |
| Price vs 50-day | 8.4% | 11.4% |
| Price vs 200-day | 15.1% | 6.2% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 45% | 22.3% |
Risk
Split| Metric | LW | MO |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.23 | -0.52 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.34 | 0.53 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.36 | 0.65 |
| Max drawdown | -41.3% | -14.6% |
| Current drawdown | -18.4% | -4% |
| Annualized volatility | 42.6% | 26.5% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.1% | -2.3% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, LW or MO?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, MO is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 55 against LW's 48. The edge comes from quality. LW is not without a case — it holds the better momentum 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 MO the better buy right now?
MO carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 31, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: only 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor MO over LW?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. MO leads Quality by 35 points; LW leads Momentum by 8 points; LW leads Value by 5 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, LW or MO?
Analyst price targets imply -0.4% upside for LW and -16.2% for MO, so the Street currently favors LW. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors MO. 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, LW or MO?
LW is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. LW on the peer-relative Value factor, by 5 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 MO?
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 MO?
LW on the Momentum factor, by 8 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 MO?
MO is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. MO carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility. 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 MO?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 20.6% vs 71%; operating margin 8.9% vs 55.9%; ttm roe 16.1% vs -265.2%. LW leads on one measure and MO 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 MO's lead over LW getting stronger or weaker?
MO lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 12 to 7 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-29 and 2026-10-28. The lead has changed hands once in that window, most recently on 2026-07-30, when LW moved ahead of MO.
What would change the LW vs MO verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: LW closes the Quality gap — currently 35 points behind, the largest single contributor to MO's edge; LW's existing bullish trend signals translate into factor-score gains — the rules are already firing, but the scores have not yet followed; MO's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 5 points over 30 sessions, and a further 7-point move would eliminate MO's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about LW and MO?
LW: 4 bullish / 0 bearish. MO: 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 LW is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On MO it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare LW and MO 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.