AEM vs SILV Stock Comparison
SILV currently leads AEM in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 71 vs 59. The clearest difference is risk resilience.
What is the main difference between AEM and SILV?
SILV leads the current stock comparison as SilverCrest Metals Inc., with the clearest separation coming from risk resilience and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Agnico Eagle Mines Limited vs SilverCrest Metals Inc.
SILV leads
SILV leads by 12 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Quality, but the lead has narrowed from 15 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors AEM on target upside.
Stable: 3 of 5 evidence groups support SILV, and its lead is narrowing.
Agnico Eagle Mines Limited
SilverCrest Metals Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors SILV over AEM, 71 versus 59 as of Oct 21, 2026. SILV's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and quality. Analyst target upside, however, currently favors AEM. 3 of 5 covered evidence groups favor SILV today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability: the leader's advantage has been narrowing. SILV lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 15 to 12 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Agnico Eagle Mines Limited and SilverCrest Metals 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 SILV 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 93SILV +32
- Quality81 vs 87SILV +6
- Value47 vs 44Even
3 of 5 evidence groups favor SILV. SILV’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and quality.
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.
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.
SILV's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — AEM and SILV both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
SILV (SilverCrest Metals Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and quality.
AEM (Agnico Eagle Mines Limited): the counter-case, on 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
SILVSILV on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
SILVSILV on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
SILVSILV on Risk Resilience, by 32 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 SILV, analyst targets favor AEM. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | AEM | SILV | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +22% | -26.4% | AEM has more room |
| Target dispersion | +61.3% | 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.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
3 of 5 covered evidence groups favor SILV. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | SILV | 59 vs 71 |
| Fundamentals | SILVon balance | revenue growth -9.6% vs 10.5%; EPS growth -8.3% vs 45.5%; TTM ROE 22.6% vs 30.1%; gross margin 62.5% vs 60.5%; operating margin 58.3% vs 53.6% — SILV takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | Even | Value 47 vs 44 |
| Technicals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Risk Resilience | SILV | Risk Resilience 61 vs 93 |
| Analyst expectations | AEM | Target upside 22% vs -26.4% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of AEM and SILV and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion rests on a wide gap and broad agreement. It is unlikely to turn on a single session.
- The AIQ gap is wide at 12 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
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 SILV.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20SILV lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 15 to 12 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- SILV +12
- 59 vs 71
- 7 sessions ago
- SILV +15
- 56 vs 71
- 30 sessions ago
- SILV +15
- 56 vs 71
- 90 sessions ago
- SILV +6
- 70 vs 76
The lead has not changed hands in this window.
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.
2 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only AEM
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (2.73%)
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (3.56%)
- Beta Spike Warning — bearish, risk, long horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
No active signals
No signal that the other name lacks.
AEM is conflicted, so the timing case there is weaker than the score alone suggests.
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 +0.6%, 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 Risk Resilience gap — currently 32 points behind, the largest single contributor to SILV's edge.
- 2AEM's Beta Spike Warning resolves — a bearish risk rule currently active against it.
- 3SILV starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 3 points over 30 sessions, and a further 12-point move would eliminate SILV'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
SILV leads on balance| Metric | AEM | SILV |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -9.6% | 10.5% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -8.3% | 45.5% |
| Gross margin | 62.5% | 60.5% |
| Operating margin | 58.3% | 53.6% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 22.6% | 30.1% |
| Debt to equity | 0.01 | 0 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | AEM | SILV |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 0.3% | — |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -8.5% | — |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 26.7% | — |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -8.3% | — |
| Year to date | 9.9% | — |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 3% | — |
Technicals
Split| Metric | AEM | SILV |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 52.9 | — |
| ADX (14) | 14.3 | — |
| Price vs 50-day | -3.9% | — |
| Price vs 200-day | -1.9% | — |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 42.1% | — |
Risk
SILV is the more resilient| Metric | AEM | SILV |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.62 | — |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.3 | — |
| Sortino ratio | 0.44 | — |
| Max drawdown | -45.9% | — |
| Current drawdown | -26.1% | — |
| Annualized volatility | 48.3% | — |
| Value at risk (95%) | -4.9% | — |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, AEM or SILV?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, SILV is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 71 against AEM's 59. The edge comes from risk resilience 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 AEM or SILV the better buy right now?
SILV carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 2026, and the comparison is rated Stable — 3 of 5 covered evidence groups agree. A Stable rating means the gap is wide and the evidence is broad, so the conclusion is unlikely to turn on a single session.
Why does the AIQ Score favor SILV over AEM?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. SILV leads Risk Resilience by 32 points; SILV leads Quality by 6 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, AEM or SILV?
Analyst price targets imply +22% upside for AEM and -26.4% for SILV, so the Street currently favors AEM. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors SILV. 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 SILV?
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 SILV?
SILV 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 SILV?
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 SILV?
SILV is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. SILV on Risk Resilience, by 32 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 SILV?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 62.5% vs 60.5%; operating margin 58.3% vs 53.6%; ttm roe 22.6% vs 30.1%. AEM leads on two measures and SILV 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 SILV's lead over AEM getting stronger or weaker?
SILV lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 15 to 12 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the AEM vs SILV verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: AEM closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 32 points behind, the largest single contributor to SILV's edge; AEM's Beta Spike Warning resolves — a bearish risk rule currently active against it; SILV starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 3 points over 30 sessions, and a further 12-point move would eliminate SILV's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about AEM and SILV?
AEM: 2 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. SILV: No active signals. 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).
Compare AEM and SILV 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.