LYB vs RPM Stock Comparison
Compare LYB and RPM across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between LYB and RPM?
RPM leads the current stock comparison as RPM International Inc., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
LyondellBasell Industries N.V. vs RPM International Inc.
RPM leads
RPM leads by 12 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Risk Resilience, but the lead has narrowed from 16 points over 30 sessions.
Stable: 5 of 6 evidence groups support RPM, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
LyondellBasell Industries N.V.
RPM International Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors RPM over LYB, 50 versus 38 as of Sep 11, 2026. RPM's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and risk resilience, while LYB holds the stronger momentum profile. RPM also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor RPM today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability: the leader's advantage has been narrowing. RPM lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 16 to 12 points over 30 sessions.
Compare LyondellBasell Industries N.V. and RPM International Inc. 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 RPM 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.
- Quality16 vs 57RPM +41
- Momentum50 vs 22LYB +28
- Risk Resilience46 vs 64RPM +18
- Value47 vs 61RPM +14
5 of 6 evidence groups favor RPM. RPM’s edge is concentrated in quality and risk resilience; LYB keeps a meaningful momentum 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 -7
No new signals fired.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
RPM's lead widened by 2 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — LYB and RPM both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
RPM (RPM International Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and risk resilience.
LYB (LyondellBasell Industries N.V.): the counter-case, on momentum, technicals — but at materially higher volatility, 31.1% against 23.1%.
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
RPMRPM on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
RPMRPM on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
RPMRPM on the peer-relative Value factor, by 14 points.
Momentum
LYBLYB on the Momentum factor, by 28 points.
Lower downside
RPMRPM on Risk Resilience, by 18 points.
Analyst upside
RPMRPM 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 | LYB | RPM | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +20.2% | +31.6% | RPM has more room |
| Target dispersion | +49.6% | +25.8% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 8 | 6 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor RPM. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | RPM | 38 vs 50 |
| Fundamentals | RPM | revenue growth 27.5% vs 38.8%; EPS growth 3.5% vs 3.2%; TTM ROE -3.4% vs 20.9%; gross margin 13.2% vs 41.4%; operating margin 3.2% vs 12.3% |
| Valuation | RPM | Value 47 vs 61 |
| Technicals | LYB | Price vs 50-day 3.9% vs -7.1%; vs 200-day 5.7% vs -6.8% |
| Risk Resilience | RPM | Risk Resilience 46 vs 64 |
| Analyst expectations | RPM | Target upside 20.2% vs 31.6% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of LYB and RPM and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion rests on a wide gap and broad agreement. It is unlikely to turn on a single session.
- The AIQ gap is wide at 12 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 5 of 6 covered evidence groups point the same way. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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)
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 RPM.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10RPM lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 16 to 12 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- RPM +12
- 38 vs 50
- 7 sessions ago
- RPM +11
- 40 vs 51
- 30 sessions ago
- RPM +16
- 44 vs 60
- 90 sessions ago
- RPM +26
- 32 vs 58
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 / 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
2 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (1.26%)
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
RPM 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).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.91%, 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.
- 1LYB closes the Quality gap — currently 41 points behind, the largest single contributor to RPM's edge.
- 2LYB's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3RPM's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 4 points over 30 sessions, and a further 12-point move would eliminate RPM'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
RPM leads on balance| Metric | LYB | RPM |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 27.5% | 38.8% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 3.5% | 3.2% |
| Gross margin | 13.2% | 41.4% |
| Operating margin | 3.2% | 12.3% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -3.4% | 20.9% |
| Debt to equity | 1.33 | 0.87 |
Performance
LYB leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | LYB | RPM |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -3.4% | -3.8% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 2.4% | -13.7% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -1.3% | -4.8% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -4.6% | -2.2% |
| Year to date | 48.5% | -4.5% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 17.7% | -21.8% |
Technicals
LYB has the stronger structure| Metric | LYB | RPM |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 36.4 | 24.6 |
| ADX (14) | 19.5 | 16.8 |
| Price vs 50-day | 3.9% | -7.1% |
| Price vs 200-day | 5.7% | -6.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 31.1% | 23.1% |
Risk
RPM is the more resilient| Metric | LYB | RPM |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | -0.35 | 0.95 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.51 | -0.78 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.82 | -1.54 |
| Max drawdown | -36.2% | -27.3% |
| Current drawdown | -21.9% | -22.6% |
| Annualized volatility | 43.1% | 29.7% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.8% | -2.7% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, LYB or RPM?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, RPM is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 50 against LYB's 38. The edge comes from quality and risk resilience. LYB 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 LYB or RPM the better buy right now?
RPM carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Stable — 5 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Stable rating means the gap is wide and the evidence is broad, so the conclusion is unlikely to turn on a single session.
Why does the AIQ Score favor RPM over LYB?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. RPM leads Quality by 41 points; LYB leads Momentum by 28 points; RPM leads Risk Resilience by 18 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, LYB or RPM?
Analyst price targets imply +20.2% upside for LYB and +31.6% for RPM, so the Street currently favors RPM. 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, LYB or RPM?
RPM is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. RPM on the peer-relative Value factor, by 14 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 RPM?
RPM 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 RPM?
LYB on the Momentum factor, by 28 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 RPM?
RPM is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. RPM on Risk Resilience, by 18 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 LYB more profitable than RPM?
RPM leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 13.2% vs 41.4%; operating margin 3.2% vs 12.3%; ttm roe -3.4% vs 20.9%.
Is RPM's lead over LYB getting stronger or weaker?
RPM lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 16 to 12 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 LYB vs RPM verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: LYB closes the Quality gap — currently 41 points behind, the largest single contributor to RPM's edge; LYB's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; RPM's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 4 points over 30 sessions, and a further 12-point move would eliminate RPM's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about LYB and RPM?
LYB: 3 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. RPM: 2 bullish / 2 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 LYB is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On RPM it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare LYB and RPM 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.