LYB vs MOS Stock Comparison
Compare LYB and MOS across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between LYB and MOS?
MOS leads the current stock comparison as The Mosaic Company, with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
LyondellBasell Industries N.V. vs The Mosaic Company
MOS leads
MOS leads by 16 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Value, and the lead has widened from 5 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors LYB on target upside.
Competitive: 3 of 6 evidence groups support MOS, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
LyondellBasell Industries N.V.
The Mosaic Company
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors MOS over LYB, 54 versus 38 as of Sep 11, 2026. MOS's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and value. MOS also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors LYB. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor MOS today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. MOS lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 5 to 16 points over 30 sessions.
Compare LyondellBasell Industries N.V. and The Mosaic Company 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 LYB and MOS 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.
- Momentum50 vs 74MOS +24
- Value47 vs 66MOS +19
- Quality16 vs 28MOS +12
- Risk Resilience46 vs 48Even
3 of 6 evidence groups favor MOS. MOS’s edge is concentrated in momentum and value.
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 -7
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum -5
No new signals fired.
MOS's lead widened by 1 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — LYB and MOS both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
MOS (The Mosaic Company): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and value.
LYB (LyondellBasell Industries N.V.): the counter-case, on fundamentals, analyst expectations.
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
MOSMOS on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
LYBLYB on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
MOSMOS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 19 points.
Momentum
MOSMOS on the Momentum factor, by 24 points.
Lower downside
LYBLYB carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
LYBLYB on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors MOS, analyst targets favor LYB. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | LYB | MOS | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +20.2% | +6% | LYB has more room |
| Target dispersion | +49.6% | +41.2% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 8 | 9 | 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 MOS. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | MOS | 38 vs 54 |
| Fundamentals | LYB | revenue growth 27.5% vs -5.8%; EPS growth 3.5% vs -8.9%; gross margin 13.2% vs 11.5%; operating margin 3.2% vs 1.4% |
| Valuation | MOS | Value 47 vs 66 |
| Technicals | MOS | Price vs 50-day 3.9% vs 9.7%; vs 200-day 5.7% vs 3.5% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 46 vs 48 |
| Analyst expectations | LYB | Target upside 20.2% vs 6% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of LYB and MOS 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 wide at 16 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 MOS.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10MOS lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 5 to 16 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- MOS +16
- 38 vs 54
- 7 sessions ago
- MOS +15
- 40 vs 55
- 30 sessions ago
- MOS +5
- 44 vs 49
- 90 sessions ago
- MOS +12
- 32 vs 44
The lead changed hands once in this window, most recently on Aug 17 when LYB moved ahead of MOS.
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 / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (0.76%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
1 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (6.84%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (4.25%)
MOS 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 down over the latest session (price -0.95%, AIQ -2 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved down over the latest session (price -0.83%, 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.
- 1LYB closes the Momentum gap — currently 24 points behind, the largest single contributor to MOS's edge.
- 2LYB's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3MOS's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 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
LYB leads on balance| Metric | LYB | MOS |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 27.5% | -5.8% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 3.5% | -8.9% |
| Gross margin | 13.2% | 11.5% |
| Operating margin | 3.2% | 1.4% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -3.4% | 0.4% |
| Debt to equity | 1.33 | 0.51 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | LYB | MOS |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -3.4% | -1.5% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 2.4% | 12.4% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -1.3% | 23.8% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -4.6% | -12.9% |
| Year to date | 48.5% | 5.4% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 17.7% | -22% |
Technicals
MOS has the stronger structure| Metric | LYB | MOS |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 36.4 | 64.5 |
| ADX (14) | 19.5 | 29 |
| Price vs 50-day | 3.9% | 9.7% |
| Price vs 200-day | 5.7% | 3.5% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 31.1% | 43% |
Risk
Split| Metric | LYB | MOS |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | -0.35 | 0.76 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.51 | -0.39 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.82 | -0.6 |
| Max drawdown | -36.2% | -44.8% |
| Current drawdown | -21.9% | -29.3% |
| Annualized volatility | 43.1% | 45% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.8% | -4.8% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, LYB or MOS?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, MOS is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 54 against LYB's 38. The edge comes from momentum and value. 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 LYB or MOS the better buy right now?
MOS carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 3 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 MOS over LYB?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. MOS leads Momentum by 24 points; MOS leads Value by 19 points; MOS leads Quality by 12 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, LYB or MOS?
Analyst price targets imply +20.2% upside for LYB and +6% for MOS, so the Street currently favors LYB. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors MOS. 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, LYB or MOS?
MOS is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. MOS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 19 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, LYB or MOS?
LYB 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, LYB or MOS?
MOS on the Momentum factor, by 24 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, LYB or MOS?
LYB is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. LYB 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 LYB more profitable than MOS?
LYB leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 13.2% vs 11.5%; operating margin 3.2% vs 1.4%; ttm roe -3.4% vs 0.4%.
Is MOS's lead over LYB getting stronger or weaker?
MOS lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 5 to 16 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has changed hands once in that window, most recently on 2026-08-17, when LYB moved ahead of MOS.
What would change the LYB vs MOS verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: LYB closes the Momentum gap — currently 24 points behind, the largest single contributor to MOS's edge; LYB's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; MOS's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 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 LYB and MOS?
LYB: 3 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. MOS: 1 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 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 LYB is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On MOS it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare LYB and MOS 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.