AEM vs BTG Stock Comparison
BTG currently leads AEM in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 62 vs 58. The clearest difference is value, while AEM has the stronger risk resilience profile.
What is the main difference between AEM and BTG?
BTG leads the current stock comparison as B2Gold Corp., with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Agnico Eagle Mines Limited vs B2Gold Corp.
BTG leads
BTG leads by 4 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Momentum. Wall Street currently favors AEM on target upside.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support BTG, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Agnico Eagle Mines Limited
B2Gold Corp.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors BTG over AEM, 62 versus 58 as of Oct 31, 2026. BTG's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and momentum, while AEM holds the stronger risk resilience profile. BTG also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors AEM. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor BTG today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 4 points. BTG lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 4 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Agnico Eagle Mines Limited and B2Gold Corp. 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 BTG 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.
- Value47 vs 68BTG +21
- Risk Resilience61 vs 50AEM +11
- Quality81 vs 72AEM +9
- Momentum40 vs 48BTG +8
3 of 6 evidence groups favor BTG. BTG’s edge is concentrated in value and momentum; AEM keeps a meaningful risk resilience edge.
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.
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
BTG's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — AEM and BTG both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
BTG (B2Gold Corp.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and momentum.
AEM (Agnico Eagle Mines Limited): the counter-case, on risk resilience, quality, fundamentals.
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
BTGBTG on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
BTGBTG on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
BTGBTG on the peer-relative Value factor, by 21 points.
Momentum
BTGBTG on the Momentum factor, by 8 points.
Lower downside
AEMAEM on Risk Resilience, by 11 points.
Analyst upside
AEMAEM on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors BTG, analyst targets favor AEM. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | AEM | BTG | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +37.6% | +34.1% | AEM has more room |
| Target dispersion | +61.5% | +40.5% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 6 | 3 | 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 | BTG |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 10.99% | -6.17% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $0.950 | $0.110 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $1.600 | $0.080 |
| Years increased | 2 | 1 |
| No cut in window | Yes | No (1) |
| Cohort rank | #76 | not ranked |
AEM grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 10.99% a year against BTG's -6.17%. AEM never reduced its regular dividend in the window; BTG did in 1 year. They are ranked in different cohorts — US dividend-paying corporations and variable-dividend payers — so their ranks are not comparable with each other.
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 BTG. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | BTG | 58 vs 62 |
| Fundamentals | AEMon balance | revenue growth -9.6% vs -32.7%; EPS growth -8.3% vs 106.7%; TTM ROE 22.6% vs 21.9%; gross margin 62.5% vs 49.2%; operating margin 58.3% vs 46% — AEM takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | BTG | Value 47 vs 68 |
| Technicals | BTG | Price vs 50-day -14.9% vs -13.5%; vs 200-day -3.4% vs 6% |
| Risk Resilience | AEM | Risk Resilience 61 vs 50 |
| Analyst expectations | AEM | Target upside 37.6% vs 34.1% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of AEM and BTG 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 4 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 3 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)
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 BTG.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 29 – Oct 28BTG lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 4 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- BTG +4
- 58 vs 62
- 7 sessions ago
- BTG +3
- 55 vs 58
- 30 sessions ago
- BTG +6
- 53 vs 59
- 90 sessions ago
- Level
- 69 vs 69
The lead changed hands 4 times in this window, most recently on Aug 31 when BTG moved ahead of AEM.
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.
AEM and BTG carry the same 4 signals, so the signals do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode, Beta Spike Warning, MACD Bearish Crossover.
BTG 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).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -7.82%, 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.
- 1AEM closes the Value gap — currently 21 points behind, the largest single contributor to BTG's edge.
- 2AEM's Beta Spike Warning resolves — a bearish risk rule currently active against it.
- 3BTG'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
AEM leads on balance| Metric | AEM | BTG |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -9.6% | -32.7% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -8.3% | 106.7% |
| Gross margin | 62.5% | 49.2% |
| Operating margin | 58.3% | 46% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 22.6% | 21.9% |
| Debt to equity | 0.01 | 0.11 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | AEM | BTG |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -2.3% | -2.5% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -0.1% | -1.9% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 21.5% | 33% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -0.2% | 18.8% |
| Year to date | 8% | 13.5% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 12.1% | -1.7% |
Technicals
BTG has the stronger structure| Metric | AEM | BTG |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 49.3 | 50 |
| ADX (14) | 17.6 | 13.7 |
| Price vs 50-day | -14.9% | -13.5% |
| Price vs 200-day | -3.4% | 6% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 42.8% | 44.9% |
Risk
AEM is the more resilient| Metric | AEM | BTG |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.72 | 2.14 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.48 | 0.31 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.72 | 0.49 |
| Max drawdown | -45.9% | -41.2% |
| Current drawdown | -27.4% | -17.6% |
| Annualized volatility | 47.8% | 60.8% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -4.9% | -5.6% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, AEM or BTG?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, BTG is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 62 against AEM's 58. The edge comes from value and momentum. AEM is not without a case — it holds the better risk resilience 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 AEM or BTG the better buy right now?
BTG carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 31, 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 4 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor BTG over AEM?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. BTG leads Value by 21 points; AEM leads Risk Resilience by 11 points; AEM leads Quality by 9 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, AEM or BTG?
Analyst price targets imply +37.6% upside for AEM and +34.1% for BTG, so the Street currently favors AEM. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors BTG. 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 BTG?
BTG is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. BTG on the peer-relative Value factor, by 21 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, AEM or BTG?
BTG 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 BTG?
BTG on the Momentum factor, by 8 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, AEM or BTG?
AEM is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. AEM on Risk Resilience, by 11 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 BTG?
AEM leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 62.5% vs 49.2%; operating margin 58.3% vs 46%; ttm roe 22.6% vs 21.9%.
Is BTG's lead over AEM getting stronger or weaker?
BTG lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 4 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 2026-08-31, when BTG moved ahead of AEM.
What would change the AEM vs BTG verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: AEM closes the Value gap — currently 21 points behind, the largest single contributor to BTG's edge; AEM's Beta Spike Warning resolves — a bearish risk rule currently active against it; BTG'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 BTG?
AEM: 1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. BTG: 1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 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 BTG it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare AEM and BTG 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.