AGI vs EQX Stock Comparison
AGI currently leads EQX in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 56 vs 50. The clearest difference is risk resilience, while EQX has the stronger value profile.
What is the main difference between AGI and EQX?
AGI leads the current stock comparison as Alamos Gold Inc., with the clearest separation coming from risk resilience and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Alamos Gold Inc. vs Equinox Gold Corp.
AGI leads
AGI leads by 6 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Quality.
Competitive: 4 of 6 evidence groups support AGI, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Alamos Gold Inc.
Equinox Gold Corp.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors AGI over EQX, 56 versus 50 as of Oct 21, 2026. AGI's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and quality, while EQX holds the stronger value profile. AGI also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor AGI today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. AGI lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 6 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Alamos Gold Inc. and Equinox Gold 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 AGI and EQX 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 Resilience56 vs 31AGI +25
- Quality82 vs 60AGI +22
- Value45 vs 56EQX +11
- Momentum39 vs 41Even
4 of 6 evidence groups favor AGI. AGI’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and quality; EQX keeps a meaningful value edge.
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 +2, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
New signals
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum +2
New signals
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
AGI's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — AGI and EQX both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
AGI (Alamos Gold Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and quality.
EQX (Equinox Gold Corp.): the counter-case, on value, valuation, technicals — but at materially higher volatility, 54.2% against 40.4%.
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
AGIAGI on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
AGIAGI on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EQXEQX on the peer-relative Value factor, by 11 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
AGIAGI on Risk Resilience, by 25 points.
Analyst upside
AGIAGI on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
Where the systematic read and the analyst consensus line up — and where they do not.
| Measure | AGI | EQX | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +32.4% | +22.3% | AGI has more room |
| Target dispersion | 0% | +7.4% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 1 | 1 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor AGI. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | AGI | 56 vs 50 |
| Fundamentals | AGI | revenue growth -1.6% vs -10.7%; EPS growth 40% vs -25.6%; TTM ROE 26.1% vs 13.7%; gross margin 60.1% vs 39.1%; operating margin 56.5% vs 37.9% |
| Valuation | EQX | Value 45 vs 56 |
| Technicals | EQX | Price vs 50-day -8.1% vs -7.8%; vs 200-day -17.5% vs -14.5% |
| Risk Resilience | AGI | Risk Resilience 56 vs 31 |
| Analyst expectations | AGI | Target upside 32.4% vs 22.3% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of AGI and EQX and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
- The AIQ gap is moderate at 6 points.
- 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 AGI.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20AGI lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 6 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- AGI +6
- 56 vs 50
- 7 sessions ago
- AGI +6
- 54 vs 48
- 30 sessions ago
- AGI +5
- 52 vs 47
- 90 sessions ago
- AGI +8
- 65 vs 57
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.
1 bullish / 3 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only AGI
- Beta Spike Warning — bearish, risk, long horizon
1 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
No signal that the other name lacks.
Both carry 5 more signals that do not separate them: Bollinger Band Squeeze, Death Cross Active, ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode, Downtrend Structure Active, MACD Bullish Crossover.
AGI 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 -0.35%, AIQ 0 points).
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -0.18%, 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.
- 1EQX closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 25 points behind, the largest single contributor to AGI's edge.
- 2EQX's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3AGI's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 3 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 | AGI | EQX |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -1.6% | -10.7% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 40% | -25.6% |
| Gross margin | 60.1% | 39.1% |
| Operating margin | 56.5% | 37.9% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 26.1% | 13.7% |
| Debt to equity | 0.05 | 0.09 |
Performance
EQX leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | AGI | EQX |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -0.2% | 1.9% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -12.3% | -13.3% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 4.2% | 18.3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -28.5% | -21.9% |
| Year to date | -17.5% | -21.2% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -12.9% | -12.6% |
Technicals
EQX has the stronger structure| Metric | AGI | EQX |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 46.6 | 49.3 |
| ADX (14) | 16.7 | 13 |
| Price vs 50-day | -8.1% | -7.8% |
| Price vs 200-day | -17.5% | -14.5% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 40.4% | 54.2% |
Risk
AGI is the more resilient| Metric | AGI | EQX |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.84 | 2.01 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.06 | 0.12 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.08 | 0.19 |
| Max drawdown | -49.7% | -54% |
| Current drawdown | -42.5% | -41% |
| Annualized volatility | 54.9% | 62.6% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -5.5% | -7% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, AGI or EQX?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, AGI is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 56 against EQX's 50. The edge comes from risk resilience and quality. EQX is not without a case — it holds the better value 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 AGI or EQX the better buy right now?
AGI carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 4 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Competitive rating means the two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
Why does the AIQ Score favor AGI over EQX?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. AGI leads Risk Resilience by 25 points; AGI leads Quality by 22 points; EQX leads Value by 11 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, AGI or EQX?
Analyst price targets imply +32.4% upside for AGI and +22.3% for EQX, so the Street currently favors AGI. The model and the Street agree here, which is a broader base of evidence than either alone. Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions, and dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Which is better value, AGI or EQX?
EQX is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. EQX on the peer-relative Value factor, by 11 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, AGI or EQX?
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, AGI or EQX?
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, AGI or EQX?
AGI is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. AGI on Risk Resilience, by 25 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 AGI more profitable than EQX?
AGI leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 60.1% vs 39.1%; operating margin 56.5% vs 37.9%; ttm roe 26.1% vs 13.7%.
Is AGI's lead over EQX getting stronger or weaker?
AGI lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 6 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 AGI vs EQX verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: EQX closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 25 points behind, the largest single contributor to AGI's edge; EQX's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; AGI's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 3 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 AGI and EQX?
AGI: 1 bullish / 3 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted. EQX: 1 bullish / 2 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 AGI is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On EQX it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare AGI and EQX 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.