AG vs SQM Stock Comparison
Compare AG and SQM across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between AG and SQM?
AG leads the current stock comparison as First Majestic Silver Corp., with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
First Majestic Silver Corp. vs Sociedad Química y Minera de Chile S.A.
AG leads
AG leads by 1 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Quality, having only recently taken the lead back from SQM. Wall Street currently favors SQM on target upside.
Fragile: 1 of 6 evidence groups support AG, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
First Majestic Silver Corp.
Sociedad Química y Minera de Chile S.A.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors AG over SQM, 51 versus 50 as of Sep 11, 2026. AG's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and quality, while SQM holds the stronger risk resilience profile. AG also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors SQM. 1 of 6 covered evidence groups favor AG today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. AG lead: Reversed — SQM led by 1 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; AG now leads by 1.
Compare First Majestic Silver Corp. and Sociedad Química y Minera de Chile S.A. across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Performance over time
Price-return comparison using available daily close history.
Total return comparison
Growth of $10,000
Based on available close-price history. Distribution reinvestment is not added unless already reflected in the source series.
Compare AG and SQM 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.
- Momentum55 vs 28AG +27
- Risk Resilience39 vs 62SQM +23
- Value41 vs 54SQM +13
- Quality64 vs 60AG +4
1 of 6 evidence groups favor AG. AG’s edge is concentrated in momentum and quality; SQM keeps a meaningful risk resilience edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-10, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-09.
Largest factor move: Momentum -8
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum -25
New signals
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
The lead changed hands: AG moved ahead of SQM in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — AG and SQM both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
AG (First Majestic Silver Corp.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and quality.
SQM (Sociedad Química y Minera de Chile S.A.): the counter-case, on risk resilience, value, 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
AGAG on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
SQMSQM on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
SQMSQM on the peer-relative Value factor, by 13 points.
Momentum
AGAG on the Momentum factor, by 27 points.
Lower downside
SQMSQM on Risk Resilience, by 23 points.
Analyst upside
SQMSQM on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors AG, analyst targets favor SQM. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | AG | SQM | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +35.8% | +39.9% | SQM has more room |
| Target dispersion | +31.1% | +24.6% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 2 | 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.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
1 of 6 covered evidence groups favor AG. 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 | 51 vs 50 |
| Fundamentals | SQMon balance | revenue growth -11.6% vs 40.3%; EPS growth -15.4% vs 80.5%; TTM ROE 12.4% vs 23.6%; gross margin 52.6% vs 42%; operating margin 44% vs 38.8% — SQM takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | SQM | Value 41 vs 54 |
| Technicals | AG | Price vs 50-day 7% vs -4.7%; vs 200-day 1.5% vs -5% |
| Risk Resilience | SQM | Risk Resilience 39 vs 62 |
| Analyst expectations | SQM | Target upside 35.8% vs 39.9% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of AG and SQM 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 1 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 1 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (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 AG.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10AG lead: Reversed — SQM led by 1 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; AG now leads by 1.
- Today
- AG +1
- 51 vs 50
- 7 sessions ago
- SQM +6
- 54 vs 60
- 30 sessions ago
- SQM +1
- 56 vs 57
- 90 sessions ago
- Level
- 43 vs 43
The lead changed hands 7 times in this window, most recently on Sep 10 when AG moved ahead of SQM.
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 / 2 neutral, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (8.54%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
1 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (4.05%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
AG 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 down over the latest session (price -2.93%, AIQ -2 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved down over the latest session (price -3.6%, AIQ -7 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.
- 1SQM closes the Momentum gap — currently 27 points behind, the largest single contributor to AG's edge.
- 2SQM's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3AG'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
SQM leads on balance| Metric | AG | SQM |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -11.6% | 40.3% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -15.4% | 80.5% |
| Gross margin | 52.6% | 42% |
| Operating margin | 44% | 38.8% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 12.4% | 23.6% |
| Debt to equity | 0.11 | 0.84 |
Performance
AG leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | AG | SQM |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -5% | -10.7% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 5.2% | 1.7% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 28.3% | -2.4% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -21.6% | -6.9% |
| Year to date | 20.9% | 5.4% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 113.5% | 59.4% |
Technicals
AG has the stronger structure| Metric | AG | SQM |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 42.9 | 37.1 |
| ADX (14) | 20.8 | 22.2 |
| Price vs 50-day | 7% | -4.7% |
| Price vs 200-day | 1.5% | -5% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 67.3% | 39.9% |
Risk
SQM is the more resilient| Metric | AG | SQM |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.81 | 1.05 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.37 | 1.33 |
| Sortino ratio | 2.21 | 2.32 |
| Max drawdown | -53% | -30.4% |
| Current drawdown | -37% | -23.9% |
| Annualized volatility | 77% | 47.8% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -7% | -4.1% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, AG or SQM?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, AG is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 51 against SQM's 50. The edge comes from momentum and quality. SQM 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 AG or SQM the better buy right now?
AG carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 1 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor AG over SQM?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. AG leads Momentum by 27 points; SQM leads Risk Resilience by 23 points; SQM leads Value by 13 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, AG or SQM?
Analyst price targets imply +35.8% upside for AG and +39.9% for SQM, so the Street currently favors SQM. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors AG. 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, AG or SQM?
SQM is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. SQM on the peer-relative Value factor, by 13 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, AG or SQM?
SQM 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, AG or SQM?
AG on the Momentum factor, by 27 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, AG or SQM?
SQM is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. SQM on Risk Resilience, by 23 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 AG more profitable than SQM?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 52.6% vs 42%; operating margin 44% vs 38.8%; ttm roe 12.4% vs 23.6%. AG leads on two measures and SQM 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 AG's lead over SQM getting stronger or weaker?
AG lead: Reversed — SQM led by 1 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; AG now leads by 1. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has changed hands 7 times in that window, most recently on 2026-09-10, when AG moved ahead of SQM.
What would change the AG vs SQM verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: SQM closes the Momentum gap — currently 27 points behind, the largest single contributor to AG's edge; SQM's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; AG'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 AG and SQM?
AG: 1 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted. SQM: 1 bullish / 3 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 AG is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On SQM it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare AG and SQM 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.