TGT vs LOW Stock Comparison
Target Corporation vs Lowe's Companies, Inc.
TGT leads
TGT leads by 18 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Quality, and the lead has widened from 7 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors LOW on target upside.
Competitive: 4 of 6 evidence groups support TGT, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Target Corporation
Lowe's Companies, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors TGT over LOW, 61 versus 43 as of Sep 5, 2026. TGT's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and quality. TGT also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors LOW. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor TGT today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. TGT lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 7 to 18 points over 30 sessions. TGT leads on all four AIQ factor dimensions. Value is itself one of those four, so a sweep is not explained by valuation alone — it deserves additional scrutiny for unmodeled catalysts, expectations or event risk.
Compare Target Corporation and Lowe's Companies, Inc. across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
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.
- Momentum25%75 vs 23TGT +52
- Quality30%54 vs 45TGT +9
- Risk Resilience15%58 vs 52TGT +6
- Value30%58 vs 53TGT +5
4 of 6 evidence groups favor TGT. TGT’s edge is concentrated in momentum and quality.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-04, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-03.
Largest factor move: Momentum +5
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum +4
No new signals fired.
TGT's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
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 momentum and quality.
LOW (Lowe's Companies, Inc.): 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
TGTTGT on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
TGTTGT on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
TGTTGT on the peer-relative Value factor, by 5 points.
Momentum
TGTTGT on the Momentum factor, by 52 points.
Lower downside
TGTTGT on Risk Resilience, by 6 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 | -8.1% | +27% | LOW has more room |
| Target dispersion | +56.9% | +18.5% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 21 | 7 | 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
4 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 | TGT | 61 vs 43 |
| 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 11.8% vs -4.2%; vs 200-day 34.2% vs -13.5% |
| Risk Resilience | TGT | Risk Resilience 58 vs 52 |
| Analyst expectations | LOW | Target upside -8.1% vs 27% |
✓ 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 two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
- The AIQ gap is wide at 18 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 TGT.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 23 – Sep 4TGT lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 7 to 18 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- TGT +18
- 61 vs 43
- 7 sessions ago
- TGT +15
- 58 vs 43
- 30 sessions ago
- TGT +7
- 60 vs 53
- 90 sessions ago
- TGT +5
- 54 vs 49
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.
3 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (20.03%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
0 bullish / 4 bearish
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (10.73%)
- 52-Week Low Proximity — bearish, risk, long horizon (0.6%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long 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.
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.26%, AIQ +1 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +1.26%, 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.
- 1LOW closes the Momentum gap — currently 52 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 3 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4A regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, 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
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 6 of 6 windows| Metric | TGT | LOW |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 0.8% | -1.7% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 9.8% | -8.5% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 34.2% | -3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 36.1% | -18.8% |
| Year to date | 68.2% | -15.2% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 77.7% | -21.6% |
Technicals
TGT has the stronger structure| Metric | TGT | LOW |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 67.4 | 33.1 |
| ADX (14) | 35.7 | 15.2 |
| Price vs 50-day | 11.8% | -4.2% |
| Price vs 200-day | 34.2% | -13.5% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 31.9% | 21.4% |
Risk
TGT is the more resilient| Metric | TGT | LOW |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.4 | 0.63 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.92 | -0.96 |
| Sortino ratio | 3.15 | -1.69 |
| Max drawdown | -13.8% | -30.5% |
| Current drawdown | -3.2% | -28.9% |
| Annualized volatility | 30.3% | 27.1% |
| 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 Sep 5, 2026, scoring 61 against LOW's 43. The edge comes from momentum and quality. 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 Sep 5, 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 TGT over LOW?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. TGT leads Momentum by 52 points; TGT leads Quality by 9 points; TGT leads Risk Resilience by 6 points. TGT leads on all four AIQ factor dimensions. Value is itself one of those four, so the sweep is not explained by LOW simply being cheaper — it warrants extra scrutiny for unmodeled catalysts, forward expectations or event risk the factors do not capture.
Which has more analyst upside, TGT or LOW?
Analyst price targets imply -8.1% upside for TGT and +27% 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?
TGT on the Momentum factor, by 52 points. Momentum carries 25% of 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 6 points. The Risk Resilience factor weights 15% of 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: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 7 to 18 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-23 and 2026-09-04. 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 Momentum gap — currently 52 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 3 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; a regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
What do the current signals say about TGT and LOW?
TGT: 3 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. LOW: 0 bullish / 4 bearish. 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
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality (30%), Value (30%), Momentum (25%) and Risk (15%). 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.