TGT vs LOW Stock Comparison
TGT currently leads LOW in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 54 vs 53. The clearest difference is risk resilience, while LOW has the stronger momentum profile.
What is the main difference between TGT and LOW?
TGT leads the current stock comparison as Target Corporation, with the clearest separation coming from risk resilience and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Target Corporation vs Lowe's Companies, Inc.
TGT leads
TGT leads by 1 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Quality, but the lead has narrowed from 14 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors LOW on target upside.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support TGT, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Target Corporation
Lowe's Companies, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors TGT over LOW, 54 versus 53 as of Oct 21, 2026. TGT's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and quality, while LOW holds the stronger momentum profile. TGT also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors LOW. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor TGT today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. TGT lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 14 to 1 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Target Corporation and Lowe's Companies, 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 TGT and LOW 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.
- Momentum43 vs 65LOW +22
- Risk Resilience63 vs 50TGT +13
- Quality54 vs 45TGT +9
- Value58 vs 53TGT +5
3 of 6 evidence groups favor TGT. TGT’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and quality; LOW keeps a meaningful momentum edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-20, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-19.
Largest factor move: Momentum +1, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
New signals
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum +7
New signals
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
TGT's lead narrowed by 2 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — TGT and LOW both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
TGT (Target Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and quality.
LOW (Lowe's Companies, Inc.): the counter-case, on momentum, fundamentals, analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 28.3% against 20.4%.
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
TGTTGT on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
TGTTGT on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
TGTTGT on the peer-relative Value factor, by 5 points.
Momentum
LOWLOW on the Momentum factor, by 22 points.
Lower downside
TGTTGT on Risk Resilience, by 13 points.
Analyst upside
LOWLOW on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors TGT, analyst targets favor LOW. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | TGT | LOW | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +0.3% | +25.7% | LOW has more room |
| Target dispersion | +56.3% | +36.4% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 22 | 11 | 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 | TGT | LOW |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 11.02% | 15.87% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $2.680 | $2.250 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $4.520 | $4.700 |
| Years increased | 5 | 5 |
| No cut in window | Yes | Yes |
| Cohort rank | #75 | #29 |
LOW grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 15.87% a year against TGT's 11.02%. 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
3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor TGT. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | Even | 54 vs 53 |
| Fundamentals | LOWon balance | revenue growth 4.3% vs 12.5%; EPS growth 140.1% vs 47.6%; TTM ROE 26.7% vs -71.8%; gross margin 29.3% vs 33.1%; operating margin 5.6% vs 11.4% — LOW takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | TGT | Value 58 vs 53 |
| Technicals | TGT | Price vs 50-day -3.3% vs -1.1%; vs 200-day 16.5% vs -13% |
| Risk Resilience | TGT | Risk Resilience 63 vs 50 |
| Analyst expectations | LOW | Target upside 0.3% vs 25.7% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of TGT and LOW 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 narrow at 1 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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 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 TGT.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20TGT lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 14 to 1 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- TGT +1
- 54 vs 53
- 7 sessions ago
- TGT +5
- 55 vs 50
- 30 sessions ago
- TGT +14
- 57 vs 43
- 90 sessions ago
- TGT +8
- 58 vs 50
The lead changed hands once in this window, most recently on Jul 7 when TGT moved ahead of LOW.
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.
1 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only TGT
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (19.23%)
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
2 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted
Only LOW
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (14.83%)
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
TGT 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 -1.05%, AIQ 0 points).
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 2 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -0.99%, 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.
- 1LOW closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 13 points behind, the largest single contributor to TGT's edge.
- 2LOW's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3TGT's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 13 points over 30 sessions, and a further 1-point move would eliminate TGT'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
LOW leads on balance| Metric | TGT | LOW |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 4.3% | 12.5% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 140.1% | 47.6% |
| Gross margin | 29.3% | 33.1% |
| Operating margin | 5.6% | 11.4% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 26.7% | -71.8% |
| Debt to equity | 1.05 | -5.65 |
Performance
TGT leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | TGT | LOW |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 1.3% | 5.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -3.2% | 1.2% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 11.7% | -2.8% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 16.6% | -21% |
| Year to date | 57.5% | -17.7% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 71% | -18.3% |
Technicals
TGT has the stronger structure| Metric | TGT | LOW |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 44.3 | 68.5 |
| ADX (14) | 12 | 23.8 |
| Price vs 50-day | -3.3% | -1.1% |
| Price vs 200-day | 16.5% | -13% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 20.4% | 28.3% |
Risk
TGT is the more resilient| Metric | TGT | LOW |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.35 | 0.63 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.76 | -0.76 |
| Sortino ratio | 2.92 | -1.36 |
| Max drawdown | -13.8% | -37.5% |
| Current drawdown | -9.3% | -30.9% |
| Annualized volatility | 30.4% | 27.8% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3% | -2.7% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, TGT or LOW?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, TGT is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 54 against LOW's 53. The edge comes from risk resilience and quality. LOW 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 TGT or LOW the better buy right now?
TGT carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor TGT over LOW?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. LOW leads Momentum by 22 points; TGT leads Risk Resilience by 13 points; TGT leads Quality by 9 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, TGT or LOW?
Analyst price targets imply +0.3% upside for TGT and +25.7% for LOW, so the Street currently favors LOW. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors TGT. 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, TGT or LOW?
TGT is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. TGT 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, TGT or LOW?
TGT 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, TGT or LOW?
LOW on the Momentum factor, by 22 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, TGT or LOW?
TGT is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. TGT on Risk Resilience, by 13 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 TGT more profitable than LOW?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 29.3% vs 33.1%; operating margin 5.6% vs 11.4%; ttm roe 26.7% vs -71.8%. TGT leads on one measure and LOW 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 TGT's lead over LOW getting stronger or weaker?
TGT lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 14 to 1 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has changed hands once in that window, most recently on 2026-07-07, when TGT moved ahead of LOW.
What would change the TGT vs LOW verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: LOW closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 13 points behind, the largest single contributor to TGT's edge; LOW's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; TGT's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 13 points over 30 sessions, and a further 1-point move would eliminate TGT's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about TGT and LOW?
TGT: 1 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. LOW: 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 TGT is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On LOW it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare TGT and LOW 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.