AG vs SQM Stock Comparison
SQM currently leads AG in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 51 vs 46. The clearest difference is risk resilience, while AG has the stronger momentum profile.
What is the main difference between AG and SQM?
SQM leads the current stock comparison as Sociedad Química y Minera de Chile S.A., with the clearest separation coming from risk resilience and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
First Majestic Silver Corp. vs Sociedad Química y Minera de Chile S.A.
SQM leads
SQM leads by 5 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Value. Wall Street currently favors AG on target upside.
Fragile: 4 of 6 evidence groups support SQM, 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 SQM over AG, 51 versus 46 as of Oct 31, 2026. SQM's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and value, while AG holds the stronger momentum profile. SQM also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors AG. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor SQM today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 5 points. SQM lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 5 points over 30 sessions.
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
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 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.
- Risk Resilience40 vs 67SQM +27
- Value41 vs 54SQM +13
- Momentum33 vs 26AG +7
- Quality64 vs 60AG +4
4 of 6 evidence groups favor SQM. SQM’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and value; AG keeps a meaningful momentum 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: Momentum -1, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
New signals
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum -1, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
New signals
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
SQM's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
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
SQM (Sociedad Química y Minera de Chile S.A.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and value.
AG (First Majestic Silver Corp.): the counter-case, on momentum, quality, analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 50.5% against 33%.
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
SQMSQM 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 7 points.
Lower downside
SQMSQM on Risk Resilience, by 27 points.
Analyst upside
AGAG on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors SQM, analyst targets favor AG. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | AG | SQM | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +84.8% | +77.3% | AG has more room |
| Target dispersion | +31.3% | +24.8% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 2 | 4 | 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
4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor SQM. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | SQM | 46 vs 51 |
| 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 | Even | Price vs 50-day -23% vs -20.6%; vs 200-day -21.2% vs -22.3% |
| Risk Resilience | SQM | Risk Resilience 40 vs 67 |
| Analyst expectations | AG | Target upside 84.8% vs 77.3% |
✓ 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 5 points. (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 SQM.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 29 – Oct 28SQM lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 5 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- SQM +5
- 46 vs 51
- 7 sessions ago
- SQM +7
- 44 vs 51
- 30 sessions ago
- SQM +7
- 43 vs 50
- 90 sessions ago
- Level
- 56 vs 56
The lead changed hands 4 times in this window, most recently on Sep 23 when SQM moved ahead of AG.
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 / 3 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only AG
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (4.73%)
- Beta Spike Warning — bearish, risk, long horizon
1 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted
No signal that the other name lacks.
Both carry 3 more signals that do not separate them: Death Cross Active, Downtrend Structure Active, MACD Bullish Crossover.
SQM 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 -6.98%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -3.05%, 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.
- 1AG closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 27 points behind, the largest single contributor to SQM's edge.
- 2AG's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3SQM'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
Split across windows| Metric | AG | SQM |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -1.8% | 0.9% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -10.7% | -9.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 0.7% | -13.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -16.6% | -35.2% |
| Year to date | -5.2% | -14.3% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 23.1% | 29.4% |
Technicals
Split| Metric | AG | SQM |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 39.7 | 30.8 |
| ADX (14) | 29.9 | 40.7 |
| Price vs 50-day | -23% | -20.6% |
| Price vs 200-day | -21.2% | -22.3% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 50.5% | 33% |
Risk
SQM is the more resilient| Metric | AG | SQM |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.82 | 1 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.61 | 0.74 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.97 | 1.31 |
| Max drawdown | -53.9% | -40.9% |
| Current drawdown | -50.6% | -38.2% |
| Annualized volatility | 73.4% | 47.5% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -6.9% | -4% |
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, SQM is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 51 against AG's 46. The edge comes from risk resilience and value. AG is not without a case — it holds the better momentum 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?
SQM carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 31, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 4 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 5 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor SQM over AG?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. SQM leads Risk Resilience by 27 points; SQM leads Value by 13 points; AG leads Momentum by 7 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 +84.8% upside for AG and +77.3% for SQM, so the Street currently favors AG. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors SQM. 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 7 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 27 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 SQM's lead over AG getting stronger or weaker?
SQM lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 5 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 2026-09-23, when SQM moved ahead of AG.
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: AG closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 27 points behind, the largest single contributor to SQM's edge; AG's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; SQM'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 / 3 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted. SQM: 1 bullish / 2 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 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.