AEM vs AGI Stock Comparison
AEM currently leads AGI in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 58 vs 56. The clearest difference is risk resilience.
What is the main difference between AEM and AGI?
AEM leads the current stock comparison as Agnico Eagle Mines Limited, with the clearest separation coming from risk resilience and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Agnico Eagle Mines Limited vs Alamos Gold Inc.
AEM leads
AEM leads by 2 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience. Wall Street currently favors AGI on target upside.
Fragile: 2 of 6 evidence groups support AEM, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Agnico Eagle Mines Limited
Alamos Gold Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors AEM over AGI, 58 versus 56 as of Oct 31, 2026. AEM's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience. AEM also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors AGI. 2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor AEM today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. AEM lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 2 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Agnico Eagle Mines Limited and Alamos Gold 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 AEM and AGI 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.
- Risk Resilience61 vs 57AEM +4
- Value47 vs 45Even
- Quality81 vs 82Even
- Momentum40 vs 39Even
2 of 6 evidence groups favor AEM. AEM’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-28, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-27.
Largest factor move: Risk Resilience +1
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum -1
New signals
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
AEM's lead widened by 2 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — AEM and AGI both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
AEM (Agnico Eagle Mines Limited): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience.
AGI (Alamos Gold 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
AEMAEM on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
AGIAGI on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
AEMAEM on Risk Resilience, by 4 points.
Analyst upside
AGIAGI on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors AEM, analyst targets favor AGI. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | AEM | AGI | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +37.6% | +53% | AGI has more room |
| Target dispersion | +61.5% | 0% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 6 | 1 | 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 | AEM | AGI |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 10.99% | 9.00% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $0.950 | $0.065 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $1.600 | $0.100 |
| Years increased | 2 | 1 |
| No cut in window | Yes | Yes |
| Cohort rank | #76 | #121 |
AEM grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 10.99% a year against AGI's 9.00%. 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
2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor AEM. 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 | 58 vs 56 |
| Fundamentals | AGIon balance | revenue growth -9.6% vs -1.6%; EPS growth -8.3% vs 40%; TTM ROE 22.6% vs 26.1%; gross margin 62.5% vs 60.1%; operating margin 58.3% vs 56.5% — AGI takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | Even | Value 47 vs 45 |
| Technicals | AEM | Price vs 50-day -14.9% vs -19.8%; vs 200-day -3.4% vs -17.3% |
| Risk Resilience | AEM | Risk Resilience 61 vs 57 |
| Analyst expectations | AGI | Target upside 37.6% vs 53% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of AEM and AGI 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 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (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)
- Analyst targets on the leader are widely dispersed. (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 AEM.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 29 – Oct 28AEM lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 2 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- AEM +2
- 58 vs 56
- 7 sessions ago
- AEM +1
- 55 vs 54
- 30 sessions ago
- AEM +1
- 53 vs 52
- 90 sessions ago
- AEM +4
- 69 vs 65
The lead changed hands 4 times in this window, most recently on Jul 23 when AEM moved ahead of AGI.
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 / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only AEM
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (2.47%)
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
1 bullish / 3 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only AGI
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (11.92%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode, Beta Spike Warning.
AEM 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 is down while the AIQ Score moved up 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -5.99%, AIQ +1 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved down over the latest session (price -4.79%, 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.
- 1AGI closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 4 points behind, the largest single contributor to AEM's edge.
- 2AGI's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3AEM's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 2 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
AGI leads on balance| Metric | AEM | AGI |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -9.6% | -1.6% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -8.3% | 40% |
| Gross margin | 62.5% | 60.1% |
| Operating margin | 58.3% | 56.5% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 22.6% | 26.1% |
| Debt to equity | 0.01 | 0.05 |
Performance
AEM leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | AEM | AGI |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -2.3% | -0.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -0.1% | -2.2% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 21.5% | 11.5% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -0.2% | -22.6% |
| Year to date | 8% | -17.9% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 12.1% | 0.4% |
Technicals
AEM has the stronger structure| Metric | AEM | AGI |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 49.3 | 46.7 |
| ADX (14) | 17.6 | 15.9 |
| Price vs 50-day | -14.9% | -19.8% |
| Price vs 200-day | -3.4% | -17.3% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 42.8% | 37.7% |
Risk
AEM is the more resilient| Metric | AEM | AGI |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.72 | 1.9 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.48 | 0.21 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.72 | 0.3 |
| Max drawdown | -45.9% | -49.7% |
| Current drawdown | -27.4% | -42.8% |
| Annualized volatility | 47.8% | 54.2% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -4.9% | -5.3% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, AEM or AGI?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, AEM is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 58 against AGI's 56. The edge comes from risk resilience. 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 AEM or AGI the better buy right now?
AEM carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 31, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 2 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 AEM over AGI?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. AEM leads Risk Resilience by 4 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, AEM or AGI?
Analyst price targets imply +37.6% upside for AEM and +53% for AGI, so the Street currently favors AGI. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors AEM. 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, AEM or AGI?
Neither name separates on the peer-relative Value factor. The two are level on Value. 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, AEM or AGI?
AGI 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, AEM or AGI?
The two are level on Momentum. 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, AEM or AGI?
AEM is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. AEM on Risk Resilience, by 4 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 AEM more profitable than AGI?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 62.5% vs 60.1%; operating margin 58.3% vs 56.5%; ttm roe 22.6% vs 26.1%. AEM leads on two measures and AGI on one measure, 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 AEM's lead over AGI getting stronger or weaker?
AEM lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 2 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-29 and 2026-10-28. The lead has changed hands 4 times in that window, most recently on 2026-07-23, when AEM moved ahead of AGI.
What would change the AEM vs AGI verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: AGI closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 4 points behind, the largest single contributor to AEM's edge; AGI's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; AEM's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 2 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 AEM and AGI?
AEM: 1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. AGI: 1 bullish / 3 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 AEM is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On AGI it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare AEM and AGI 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.