WMT vs LOW Stock Comparison
Walmart Inc. vs Lowe's Companies, Inc.
LOW leads
LOW leads by 2 AIQ points, primarily on Value, but the lead has narrowed from 7 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support LOW, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Walmart Inc.
Lowe's Companies, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors LOW over WMT, 42 versus 40 as of Sep 2, 2026. LOW's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value, while WMT holds the stronger quality profile. LOW also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor LOW today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. LOW lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 7 to 2 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Walmart Inc. and Lowe's Companies, Inc. across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
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.
- Value30%34 vs 52LOW +18
- Quality30%53 vs 45WMT +8
- Momentum25%25 vs 20WMT +5
- Risk Resilience15%48 vs 50Even
3 of 6 evidence groups favor LOW. LOW’s edge is concentrated in value; WMT keeps a meaningful quality edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-01, compared against the prior scored session 2026-08-31.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
LOW's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — WMT and LOW both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
LOW (Lowe's Companies, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value.
WMT (Walmart Inc.): the counter-case, on quality, momentum, technicals — but at materially higher volatility, 37.8% against 24.3%.
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
LOWLOW on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
LOWLOW on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
LOWLOW on the peer-relative Value factor, by 18 points.
Momentum
WMTWMT on the Momentum factor, by 5 points.
Lower downside
LOWLOW carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
LOWLOW 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 | WMT | LOW | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +23.8% | +28.8% | LOW has more room |
| Target dispersion | +34.3% | +18.5% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 20 | 7 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor LOW. 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 | 40 vs 42 |
| Fundamentals | LOWon balance | revenue growth -6.8% vs 12.1%; EPS growth 26.4% vs 62.9%; ROE 23.9% vs -64.8%; gross margin 25% vs 33.8%; operating margin 4.2% vs 11.5% — LOW takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | LOW | Value 34 vs 52 |
| Technicals | WMT | Price vs 50-day -5.1% vs -6.1%; vs 200-day -11.6% vs -13.6% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 48 vs 50 |
| Analyst expectations | LOW | Target upside 23.8% vs 28.8% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of WMT 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 2 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 LOW.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 20 – Sep 1LOW lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 7 to 2 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- LOW +2
- 40 vs 42
- 7 sessions ago
- LOW +3
- 39 vs 42
- 30 sessions ago
- LOW +7
- 47 vs 54
- 90 sessions ago
- LOW +8
- 42 vs 50
The lead changed hands 7 times in this window, most recently on Aug 19 when LOW moved ahead of WMT.
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.
0 bullish / 3 bearish
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (6.11%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
2 bullish / 5 bearish, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (10.32%)
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
LOW 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 +0.14%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.78%, 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.
- 1WMT closes the Value gap — currently 18 points behind, the largest single contributor to LOW's edge.
- 2WMT's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3LOW's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 5 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 5 points over 30 sessions, and a further 2-point move would eliminate LOW'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 | WMT | LOW |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -6.8% | 12.1% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 26.4% | 62.9% |
| Gross margin | 25% | 33.8% |
| Operating margin | 4.2% | 11.5% |
| Return on equity | 23.9% | -64.8% |
| Debt to equity | 0.79 | -4.59 |
Technicals
WMT has the stronger structure| Metric | WMT | LOW |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 33.7 | 26.1 |
| ADX (14) | 18.9 | 14.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | -5.1% | -6.1% |
| Price vs 200-day | -11.6% | -13.6% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 37.8% | 24.3% |
Risk
Split| Metric | WMT | LOW |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | -0.08 | 0.62 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.32 | -0.86 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.42 | -1.51 |
| Max drawdown | -23.5% | -29.7% |
| Current drawdown | -21.9% | -28.8% |
| Annualized volatility | 26.1% | 27.1% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.4% | -2.7% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, WMT or LOW?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, LOW is the stronger of the two as of Sep 2, 2026, scoring 42 against WMT's 40. The edge comes from value. WMT is not without a case — it holds the better quality 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 WMT or LOW the better buy right now?
LOW carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 2, 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 2 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor LOW over WMT?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. LOW leads Value by 18 points; WMT leads Quality by 8 points; WMT leads Momentum by 5 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, WMT or LOW?
Analyst price targets imply +23.8% upside for WMT and +28.8% for LOW, so the Street currently favors LOW. 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, WMT or LOW?
LOW is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. LOW on the peer-relative Value factor, by 18 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, WMT or LOW?
LOW 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, WMT or LOW?
WMT on the Momentum factor, by 5 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, WMT or LOW?
LOW is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. LOW carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility. The Risk Resilience factor weights 15% of the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is WMT more profitable than LOW?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 25% vs 33.8%; operating margin 4.2% vs 11.5%; roe 23.9% vs -64.8%. WMT 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 LOW's lead over WMT getting stronger or weaker?
LOW lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 7 to 2 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-20 and 2026-09-01. The lead has changed hands 7 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-19, when LOW moved ahead of WMT.
What would change the WMT vs LOW verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: WMT closes the Value gap — currently 18 points behind, the largest single contributor to LOW's edge; WMT's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; LOW's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 5 bearish rules at once; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 5 points over 30 sessions, and a further 2-point move would eliminate LOW's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about WMT and LOW?
WMT: 0 bullish / 3 bearish. LOW: 2 bullish / 5 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 WMT is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On LOW it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare WMT 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.